John Hutton: I dispute the observation that the hon. Gentleman made at the beginning of his question. When we came into government, we found that child poverty had doubled. It is now falling significantly, and falling faster here than in any other country in the European Union. We want to make further progress, and if we could ensure that child maintenance were paid more regularly and reliably to lone parents, it might act as an encouragement for more of them to take a job and return to the labour market. That in turn would allow us to make more progress in tackling our child poverty targets. They are ambitious targets, and we will need to do more over the next few years if we are to reach them. Some have said that we should not have attempted to reach that target. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman's party has not committed itself to reaching it, and that is something for him to consider. For all my right hon. and hon. Friends, it is not acceptable for any child to grow up in poverty in this country in this day and age. That is why it is right that we set ourselves the objective of eliminating child poverty, and we remain absolutely committed to it.

John Hutton: I do not know the details of that case, but if my hon. Friend would like to raise it with me, I shall be happy to look into it. To be fair to the Child Support Agency—someone needs to be—it is true to say that the number of enforcement actions is increasing substantially at the moment. I said to the chief executive that I wanted to see a significant improvement in that area, and I am glad to say that we are now seeing it. For the future, that is clearly something on which that Sir David Henshaw will be focusing his attention. It is crucial that the CSA should do better, and that any successor should do better still. I hope that we can all look forward to surgeries with fewer such cases.

John Hutton: We set out our proposals for reforming incapacity benefit in the Welfare Reform Green Paper in January. These changes will help provide more support for more disabled people to return to work, while offering more financial support to those who are unable to do so.

James Plaskitt: Levels of error and fraud in the system are falling. The Conservative Government did not even attempt to measure fraud and error, but this Government do. I do not know why the hon. Gentleman continues to scaremonger and dig away at the issue. He needs to explain matters to the pensioners he has frightened over the weekend with his stories. He is trying to suggest that, because of overpayments, somehow hundreds of thousands, or millions, of pensioners will have to hand money back. That is not the case. As was explained in answer to an earlier question, we are not clawing the money back. We have contacted only the small number of pensioners—76—to whom duplicate payments of pensions were made. He really should desist scaremongering.

Margaret Hodge: I thank my hon. Friend for his congratulations. Our record on getting people into work is now the best not only among many of our European colleagues, but among any of the G8 countries. He is right to draw the attention of the House to ensuring that older workers get skills in new technology. So far, if I am honest with him, the training grant available in the new deal 50-plus has not been effective in attracting older workers to undertake further training. We are therefore talking to our colleagues in the Department for Education and Skills to find out whether we can better reach older people through the new deal for skills so that they can take up the skills that will enable them to stay in work, or return to work.

Anne McGuire: Depending on their personal circumstances, carers have access to the full range of social security benefits. Those who provide regular and substantial care of at least 35 hours a week for a severely disabled person receiving attendance allowance, or the highest or middle rate of the disability living allowance care component, can be entitled to carer's allowance and, if on a low income, to the carer's premium in income-related benefits such as income support, housing benefit and council tax benefit, or the carer's additional amount in the pension credit.

Anne McGuire: I suspect that that might fall under the responsibility of the Department of Health, but, across Government, we are constantly looking at how we can improve the lot of carers. The Government have a proud record on trying to improve the situation of carers, not least by ensuring that women—they are mainly women—who look after people are entitled to class 1 national insurance. We have increased the earnings limit and are constantly seeking ways in which we can help carers who undertake substantial work on behalf of the whole community.

Anne Begg: Will my hon. Friend examine the level of the carer's allowance? On Friday, I met a constituent who looks after a severely disabled daughter. The money that the daughter receives through the disability living allowance goes to buy in respite and extra care, but the mother still spends a lot of time looking after her daughter, so obviously the main household income is the carer's allowance, but that is really not a supplement to what someone who was in full-time work would get.

Anne McGuire: I fear that my answer might be a bit disappointing to my hon. Friend inasmuch as we are not looking at increasing the level of the carer's allowance. However, we must realise that that allowance can be supplemented by accessing other benefits. We are constantly working with the representatives of carers' organisations and carers to examine ways in which we can improve the general support network for carers, several of which have already been indicated, and I hope that in the circumstances that my hon. Friend has highlighted her constituent would be able to look for other ways in which she could, as an individual, increase her income.

Robert Flello: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. She will be aware that industry in north Staffordshire has been particularly hard hit over the past 20 or 30 years. The pottery industry continues to be very hard hit. What steps does she intend to take to engage with city councils, for example Stoke-on-Trent city council, the voluntary sector and employers who are still in north Staffordshire to help those who are the hardest to help to get back into work?

John Reid: With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to make a statement about our operations and force levels in Iraq.
	First, let me express my sincere condolences to the families of Captain Richard Holmes and Private Lee Ellis of 2nd Battalion the Parachute Regiment, killed in Iraq on 28 February, and to the family of Trooper Carl Smith, who died on 2 February. I am sure that the whole House wishes to be associated with those condolences.
	We express our sympathy, too, for all those families of the forces of other nations and of the many innocent civilians who have died or been injured as a result of terrorist activity in Iraq in recent months.
	Hon. Members will have followed the situation carefully, and will, like me, have been concerned about events, especially those following the disgraceful bombing of the al-Askari shrine in Samarra. Some commentators have suggested that that act of terror will lead to a slide into civil war. Those acts of terrorism are cruel and barbaric but they are not mindless. They have a purpose: to undermine the efforts of the vast majority of the Iraqi people who seek peace, stability and democracy in their country, and to try to break the will of the coalition forces supporting them in that quest.
	Despite the ferocity of the terrorists, the Iraqi people will not be defeated and our will to see the job done will not be broken. Our analysis is that civil war is neither imminent nor inevitable. However, in some areas of Iraq, including in Baghdad, there has been an increase in sectarian violence. That is abhorrent and plays to the aim of the terrorists.
	However, in the face of the cynical targeting of the Samarra attack, the aftermath has been characterised more by calls for restraint by Iraqi politicians and religious leaders, the calm reaction of the vast majority of Iraqis in all the circumstances, despite their natural revulsion and anger, and the mature response of Iraq's new security forces. In the middle of all the problems, those are encouraging signs in a very difficult and delicate situation.
	Our respect and admiration for the men and women of our armed forces remains undiminished. The truly magnificent work that they are doing there is having a positive effect and they have played a vital role in helping Iraq come a long way in a short time. Suffice it to say that the Iraqis have clearly shown us what they want, and it is not a return to fear and oppression. They showed us that most impressively in December when, despite the threats of death and destruction, some 12 million of them voted in free and fair elections. That represents a turnout of about 75 per cent. of the electorate.
	The present political wrangling over the formation of a new coalition Government is perhaps natural, but it is also contributing to uncertainty and fuelling speculation. As that process moves forward, the Iraqi politicians must not forget the commitment of the Iraqi people who voted in large numbers to bring order and fair government to a unified Iraq. However, there has been a continual and considerable advance in the numbers, capability and morale of the Iraqi security forces, which have developed as democracy has developed. It is in that context that I turn to our United Kingdom troop presence.
	When I announced the last changeover in October last year, 190,000 members of the Iraqi security forces were already trained, capable and equipped. Today there are about 235,000—which is 45,000 more than when I announced the last roulement deployment—and others are joining them at the rate of about 5,000 every month. It is against that background that we assess our own force levels. I can therefore tell the House that, as a result of this roulement changeover, there will be a reduction of British forces in Iraq of about 800 personnel. That reflects the completion of our security sector reform tasks to develop the capability of the Iraqi forces, including training the trainers and those involved in guarding their own institutions. The reduction also reflects improvements in the way we configure our own forces. Our force levels reflect the in-theatre assessments in the south-east of Iraq. Today's announcement marks a reduction from the high point of some 10,000 UK personnel in October 2003 to just over 7,000 from May this year.
	The lead formation in Iraq, currently 7th Armoured Brigade, will be replaced in early May by 20th Armoured Brigade. The following major units will be deployed to replace those in theatre today: 1st The Queen's Dragoon Guards; The Queen's Royal Hussars; 12th Regiment Royal Artillery; 33 and 35 Engineer Regiments; 1st Battalion Grenadier Guards; 1st Battalion The Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment; 2nd Battalion The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers (Reserve- Cyprus); 2nd Battalion The Royal Anglian Regiment; 1st Battalion The Devon and Dorset Light Infantry; 1st Battalion The Light Infantry; and 3 Logistic Support Regiment, Royal Logistic Corps.
	A number of reserve personnel will accompany this deployment, including soldiers from The Lancastrian and Cumbrian Volunteers, and The King's and Cheshire Regiment. Aviation support will continue to be provided by five Merlin, eight Sea King support helicopters, and four Lynx. In May, there will be a reduction of two Sea King helicopters. Our support to the Iraqi navy and our contribution to the coalition taskforce in the north Arabian gulf will continue unchanged.
	Let me stress that the reductions that I have announced today are not part of a handover of security responsibility at operational level. They have not been caused by, nor are they the cause of, changes in troop levels of other coalition allies. In the next few weeks, the joint committee to transfer security responsibility—a body made up of Iraqi ministers, military staff and senior coalition figures—will start the assessment phase to determine whether conditions have been met for some provinces in Iraq to begin the handover process. Today is not that stage of handover. When the committee has reached conclusions, I will of course come back and update the House on the implications of that assessment.
	In closing, I would like to reiterate that we continue, amidst the struggle in Iraq, to make progress. Of course, much remains to be done there, but let me stress again today that the significant reductions that I have announced are not part of a handover of security responsibility to the Iraqis themselves, although they do reflect the completion of some of the security sector reform tasks that we set ourselves some time ago in developing the capability of the Iraqi forces—in particular, training the trainers and guarding institutions.
	Our commitment to the Iraqi people and their Government remains total and steadfast. Our commitment to the coalition is certain. We will stay as long as we are needed, and wanted, and until the job is done. Today marks another significant step in that direction.

Gerald Howarth: I thank the Secretary of State for letting me have advanced sight of his statement, although I note that the BBC had some knowledge of it before noon today.
	I am responding on behalf of Her Majesty's Opposition because my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), the shadow Secretary of State for Defence, is, as we speak, en route to Washington to give evidence to the Senate inquiry on the joint strike fighter, where he will be making common cause with Her Majesty's Government on the vital issue of technology transfer.
	First, may I associate those on the Conservative Benches with the condolences expressed by the Secretary of State to the families of those servicemen recently killed in Iraq? It is important that the lives of those and the other members of Her Majesty's armed forces are not to be given in vain. To that end, the transformation of Iraq into a functioning democracy must be the goal before us.
	Having been in Basra last week, I can readily join the Secretary of State in congratulating the armed forces on the magnificent job they are doing. It is, unfortunately, one of our national scandals that, while the media accord page after page to any failures, real or invented, they give such little coverage to the hard work our troops carry out on our behalf in the process of reconstructing Iraq.
	While we welcome any reduction in Britain's military presence in Iraq, if the military conditions so dictate, we take the view that it would be folly to withdraw hastily, before the Iraqi forces can provide adequate security in place of British troops.
	Will the Secretary of State confirm that the reductions he now proposes are not dictated by the need to find extra forces for Afghanistan? When does he expect the Iraqi police and army to be sufficiently trained, in number and competence, to enable them to assume control across Multinational Division South-East? What impact will the troop reduction have on the ability of UK forces to deliver essential training to the Iraqis?
	Towards the end of the statement, the Secretary of State referred to an assessment process due to get under way shortly "to determine whether conditions have been met for some provinces . . . to begin the handover process." Is it Government policy, if conditions are right, to hand over parts of MND South-East in advance of the Americans so doing in central Iraq? What discussions has he had with Washington about that process?
	Finally, the Secretary of State referred to aviation support. He will know that our helicopter and transport aircraft fleets are operating at a frenetic tempo, well beyond what was expected. How on earth can he justify the withdrawal in May of two Sea King helicopters? I was in a Sea King helicopter on Thursday, flying out to HMS Bulwark, and heard from the Royal Navy the difficulties it is having in getting hold of aircraft today. He well knows that helicopters are the preferred means of transport.
	What is the Secretary of State doing to address the critical problem of inadequate lift across the board? Does he not accept that the TriStar and VC10 fleets are past their sell-by dates, that some of them cannot be used in theatre because they lack the requisite defensive aids and that the C-130 Hercules fleet is so overworked that it has no capacity to train paratroopers? As a result of all that, the Secretary of State must rely on chartering holiday airliners which are simply not designed to transport troops.
	Is the Secretary of State aware that it is utterly demoralising for our troops to have their leave cut thanks to delays in the availability of the transport fleet for which the Royal Air Force is unjustly blamed? In the early hours of Friday morning, I was with 300 soldiers who were delayed by three and a half hours following an engine malfunction on a C-130. We then flew for eight hours from Qatar in a chartered airliner with a seat pitch designed to take holidaymakers on a two-hour trip to Ibiza. Soldiers had to endure intolerable cramped conditions because no TriStars were available.
	This is an issue that the Secretary of State can and should address now. I hope that he will have some answers to give the House today.

John Reid: I did not say that he said that: I said that I hope he was not saying that. However, two of the committees that conducted inquiries were Committees of this House and I accept their opinion and that they were not prejudiced in their approach. I do not know whether the other two, one of which took place under Lord Hutton, can be regarded as prejudiced, but if I were my hon. Friend, I would be careful about what I said. All of the committees approached their specific task with a commendable degree of open-mindedness and scrutiny. The fact that we have had four inquiries and they have not reached the conclusion that my hon. Friend wanted them to reach may be unfortunate, but perhaps it is statistically relevant. I can suggest only that what he is actually asking for is an inquiry that agrees with him, rather than one that discovers the truth.

Malcolm Rifkind: I declare an interest in a company that works in Iraq. The House will have noticed the Secretary of State's very careful words that the slide towards civil war is neither imminent nor inevitable. However, he did not say that it is unlikely. Does the Secretary of State agree that Donald Rumsfeld's remark that if there is a slide into civil war it must be dealt with by Iraqi security forces conceals a fundamental problem in the whole of coalition policy because a very high proportion of those security forces is drawn from the Shi'a and Kurdish communities, and it has been elements of the security forces, particularly the police, that have been responsible for many of the killings and atrocities that have been committed against Iraqi civilians? Can the Secretary of State say what Her Majesty's Government are doing to impress upon the Iraqi Government that not only must the armed forces be drawn substantially from the Sunni as well as other communities, but much more must be done than is being done to prevent atrocities by rogue elements within the security forces themselves?

John Reid: I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will accept that, without necessarily agreeing with all his premises, I entirely agree with both his conclusions. First, there must be not only a competent Government in Iraq but it must be non-sectarian in character and must reach out to the Sunni section of the population as well as to the majority Shi'a or the Kurd section. That means that the analysis of the violence must be more sophisticated than it sometimes is in some quarters. It is not the case that everyone who is opposed to the Government or to our troops is on the other side of the international war on terrorism. Many young Sunnis are dispossessed, unemployed and alienated—there are 200,000 of them in the Euphrates valley—and may drift in and out of violence for reasons unconnected with fanaticism or extremist ideology. I agree that if they are to be brought into ownership of Iraq, the Government have to reach out to them. Secondly, where there is evidence of bias, ranging from a natural bias towards one's own community through to the intentional infiltration of the security forces by militias, it has to be rooted out in practice, ideology and theory as well as in operational terms. Both of those things are essential if Iraq is to build national unity.

David Winnick: If commentators are right that the Milosevic regime should have been dealt with earlier, is there not a strong argument for what happened over Saddam Hussein's tyranny because he was a far worse tyrant in every way? While deploring the horrifying killings that are committed daily, is there not a responsibility on everyone, including those who opposed the war, to condemn the gangsters and criminals who are responsible for such actions and who have no concern to bring about democracy in that country? The sooner such condemnation comes from the critics, the better.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman but the remarks being made from a sedentary position by the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen) are offensive. I suggest that he withdraws them.

John Reid: —when the troops went in to achieve that objective.
	On the position of local government, to be serious, it is not true, as my hon. Friend inadvertently seemed to suggest, that local government in areas of the Multi-National Division (South-East) wanted a complete and total boycott of relations with the British authorities there. At various times recently, two of them wanted a temporary boycott—on one occasion in one province when the governor was out of the province—for a period of between a week and two weeks. That is not to diminish the seriousness of the situation, but nor should we exaggerate such things as some of the anti-war press do.
	My hon. Friend said that there are people who want the coalition forces out of Iraq. I want the coalition forces out of Iraq and as soon as the conditions are met they will come out. We have no long-term imperialist ambitions in Iraq, but when people have given their lives for democracy in Iraq it would be an absolute tragedy if we were to leave them before they were ready. If British troops are helping Iraqi democrats establish democratic control over their own lives we should be proud to stay in Iraq until the Iraqi people decide in their democratic opinion that it is time for us to go. When they say that, we will go.

John Reid: Let me give an example that will have quite a big impact on the numbers that we need to send to Iraq. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggests, not only do we have a diminished number of and need for trainers, but in the guarding of installations, which is quite an onerous task that takes up quite a number of infantry right across all the battalions that we have sent there, the Iraqis are now able in terms of training, capability, weaponry and morals to defend their own barracks, installations, arsenals or police stations, for instance. That has quite a significant effect on the numbers that we are able to draw down.

John Reid: The remarks made by General Jackson took into account the fact that the Americans were dealing with different conditions and circumstances in different parts of Iraq and with different ethnic groups from those circumstances, environments and groups with which the British had to deal. It was therefore not just a matter of a will on the part of the British to act differently from our United States colleagues, but circumstances permitted that to be the case. Nothing that he said would suggest, nor have I heard anything to suggest, that wrongful behaviour on the part of the Americans is institutionalised. Certainly, whenever any wrongful behaviour is identified, to the best of my knowledge it is dealt with in a pretty quick and robust fashion.

John Reid: May I respond to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker? At our request, the coroner clarified the fact that he was not calling for a public inquiry, nor was that what he said. We all sympathise with the feelings of the family in this case and the other cases, but we have already set in motion an independent inquiry led by Nicholas Blake, QC, which should report in the not-too-distant future. It behoves us all to await the outcome of that inquiry before we start to run across Nicholas Blake's decisions by announcing or seeking another inquiry.

Peter Hain: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	It is in the nature of adversarial politics that the emphasis is on difference and the focus on disagreement and division. Few places have been more adversarial than Northern Ireland since the latter third of the last century, but finding consensus does not mean losing integrity, and moving forward towards accommodation does not mean turning away from principle. It is my firm conviction that we can find that consensus and reach that accommodation—not an impossibly naive hope, given the years of experience since the peace process began in Northern Ireland. There is agreement on the principle of consent. There is agreement that Northern Ireland is served best when governed locally. There is agreement that Northern Ireland is served best when governed on the basis of fair and equitable power-sharing. There is agreement that Northern Ireland is served best when the police service has the whole community behind it because the whole community is in it. There is agreement that Northern Ireland must be free from the fear of paramilitary activity and criminality and that the rule of law must apply. There is agreement that common-sense north-south co-operation is of great mutual benefit. There is agreement that the current political impasse cannot continue.
	It is crucial for Northern Ireland that 2006 is the year of progress in which Northern Ireland politicians, locally accountable and operating on an inclusive basis, once more take responsibility for the things that matter in people's daily lives. It is clear, too, that there cannot be elections to an Assembly that does not exist. Members of the Legislative Assembly cannot continue to be paid salaries and allowances while the Assembly stands idle and there is no prospect of its restoration. No one can seriously contest either assertion and, to be fair, no one has done so. As the House will know, both Prime Ministers are focused on the way forward. With the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson), and the Minister for Foreign Affairs in the Irish Government, I have been talking with the parties in a series of meetings. We are all determined that devolution should be restored to the people of Northern Ireland, and I know that that determination is shared by the House.
	Before I move on to the detail of the Bill, I wish to inform the House that I have today announced the reconstitution of the Northern Ireland Policing Board with effect from 1 April 2006. The cross-community board is one of the great successes flowing from the Patten recommendations. I pay tribute to all the current members, particularly the hon. Members for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) and for South Down (Mr. McGrady), for their considerable contribution to the Policing Board over the past four and half years. The Bill covers a number of policy objectives which, for the most part, have a single unifying theme—preparing Northern Ireland for the many and various challenges that lie ahead, particularly the fact that there should be no legislative obstacles in the way of devolution. The Bill will chiefly allow maximum flexibility in the arrangements for the future devolution of policing and justice functions to the Assembly, as was envisaged at the time that the Northern Ireland Act 1998 was passed.
	Ultimately, responsibility for policing and justice in Northern Ireland should lie with Northern Ireland Ministers, accountable to a local Assembly elected by the people of Northern Ireland. That was envisaged in the Belfast agreement and the structure of the devolution settlement set out in the Northern Ireland Act 1998. Our Government have repeated on many occasions their clear commitment to devolve those functions when the time is right. An effective, independent and impartial criminal justice system is fundamental to a properly functioning society. Before the Government can devolve their responsibilities, we must be satisfied that the system will function effectively and that arrangements are in place to ensure, for example, the continued independence of the judiciary and prosecution system and the effective administration of justice.
	The independence and impartiality of the prosecution system and the judiciary are fundamental principles of the UK justice system. The existing legislation places a duty on Northern Ireland Ministers to uphold that. In addition, I intend to put forward concordats between our Government and the Northern Ireland Executive, to be agreed before the devolution of policing and justice, setting out the core principles of the independence and impartiality of the Northern Ireland judiciary and the public prosecution service.
	The Bill does not devolve policing and justice. Instead, it supports the framework that we need to put in place to devolve policing and justice by order when—not before—the circumstances are right to do so. That was the intention of the 1998 Act. Section 4 of that Act gives me the power to transfer any reserved matter to make it the responsibility of the Assembly, subject to certain important safeguards. Those safeguards remain and nothing in the Bill undermines them. Most importantly, the Assembly must agree that the time is right for policing and justice to be devolved and must vote for it on a cross-community basis. That is set out clearly in section 4 of the 1998 Act and nothing in the Bill alters that position. The Assembly must also agree what arrangements it wants to put in place to receive the new functions—whether to have one ministerial Department or two, for example. The Government must be convinced that the proposed arrangements are robust, workable and broadly supported by the parties.
	Finally, when the time comes, the order that effects the transfer of functions will need to be agreed in Parliament. There is more work to be done before we reach that point. On 16 February, alongside the Bill, I published a discussion paper that set out what the Government believe is a sensible and pragmatic framework for policing and justice in Northern Ireland. As I said then, the document is not a blueprint, but a basis for discussion. We look forward to beginning those discussions, especially with all the Northern Ireland political parties.
	In preparing for the devolution of policing and justice, it will be particularly important to ensure that the Assembly and Executive have all the tools that they need to manage the functions transferred to them. One of those tools is an arrangement whereby the Assembly will raise money specifically for policing. The policing precept in England, Scotland and Wales allows money for policing to be raised from council tax. In my constituency of Neath, for example, the precept is £126.42. We believe that it will be useful for the Assembly to have a similar power to raise additional money for policing in Northern Ireland from the regional rate. As that power can be created by an amendment to the Northern Ireland rates legislation, it does not require provision in the Bill. We will legislate for the detail of the precept in planned amendments to the Northern Ireland rates legislation. The power in clause 22 of the Bill will ensure that those changes to rates legislation cannot be amended by a future Assembly, although the level at which the precept is levied, or whether it should be zero-rated, will be matters for the Assembly. I emphasise that that will be additional money to provide enhanced levels of policing to meet Northern Ireland policing priorities and the Assembly will not have to use the power unless it wishes to do so. Equally, if it does not, there may be implications for other spending.
	I know that some hon. Members have expressed concern that we will undermine national security by devolving responsibility for policing and justice. Others have suggested that the switch in primacy for national security matters from the Police Service of Northern Ireland to the Security Service represents a sinister plot to undermine policing in Northern Ireland. Both sets of fears are completely without foundation.
	Constitutionally, central Government have responsibility for national security, whether relating to international or domestic terrorism. We cannot and will not abdicate that responsibility. Integrating the Security Service's lead and the police's operational response in the way proposed will bring Northern Ireland into line with the rest of the United Kingdom, where the Security Service has had lead responsibility since 1992.
	Let us be clear about what this change will mean in practice. The Security Service has no executive policing responsibilities, even in countering threats to national security. Such responsibilities rest now and will remain with the police, under the oversight of the Policing Board and the police ombudsman. In future, although the Security Service will gather intelligence and provide the strategic direction, it will be the police's role to mount related policing operations.
	The main reason is that we cannot address national security on a regional basis anywhere in the United Kingdom. Events have demonstrated that it is vital to provide a consistent and co-ordinated response right across the United Kingdom. International terrorists do not confine their activities to the mainland of the United Kingdom. The recent arrest in Belfast and subsequent conviction of Abbas Boutrab for terrorist-related offences of the kind associated mostly with al-Qaeda shows that. We should all be aware that modern terrorism is an international phenomenon from which Northern Ireland needs to be protected. The changes that will take place during 2007 constitute a part of the fight against international terrorism, and they are another vital step in preparing Northern Ireland for the challenges ahead.

Peter Hain: What I said, and it is helpful to clarify it for the right hon. Gentleman, is that security matters will remain with the Security Service, but operational matters that might or might not flow from intelligence, or advice from the Security Service, or a recommendation from the Security Service will be for the Police Service of Northern Ireland. The Chief Constable has supported these arrangements and the integration of the two—that is, the operational matters carried out by the PSNI and the intelligence and security matters carried out by the Security Service. Those can work very effectively together, and that is indeed planned.

Peter Hain: Due to the relationship between the PSNI and the Security Service, what might have happened in the past will not happen in the future other than for reasons of ordinary human failing, which could occur in any situation. When the hon. Gentleman examines the detail and discusses the matter with the Chief Constable—given his long experience on the Policing Board, where he played a valuable role, few people can do that better than him—he will be satisfied that that is the only way in which to proceed. As I have said, the measure concerns terrorism in its broadest context. In particular, we are dealing with the modern phenomena of international terrorism of the kind which occurred in London on 7 July. Indeed, there were fingerprints—albeit isolated fingerprints—in Belfast, where the individual whom I have described was arrested.

Peter Hain: The Select Committee very appropriately made that point. We have recently seen events in the Republic of Ireland which indicate that. All paramilitary groups have criminal tentacles. It is difficult to see that some of the loyalist paramilitary groups have any political objective any more—it seems to be pure gangsterism—although it is not quite the same in the case of the dissident republicans.In answer to the question of whether dealing with day-to-day crime unrelated to paramilitary activity of the kind identified by the Select Committee would be hampered, I do not think that it would be at all. On the contrary, an enhanced capability could help in every respect.

Ben Wallace: The Secretary of State said that no one has challenged the principle, but perhaps I may challenge the practicality. The strength of the RUC special branch, and then the PSNI, was that it had intelligence-gathering networks and executive powers, and therefore worked in a joined-up way. In giving some of those powers to the security services, how does the Secretary of State hope to clarify the situation whereby very sensitive intelligence may be handed over to a police force when the Justice Minister in a Northern Ireland Assembly is from Sinn Fein? It is at those hand-over points that intelligence can sometimes break down. I urge him to consider whether, by losing executive powers in some of the intelligence network in Northern Ireland, he may be hampering counter-terrorism efforts.

Mark Durkan: The Secretary of State said that the Patten report did not recommend that national security should be devolved. However, it clearly said that in areas of national security the PSNI would report to the Secretary of State, as opposed to reporting through the devolved mechanisms. It envisaged that issues of national security and intelligence policing at that level would be part of the responsibility of the PSNI. The Government are going against the grain of the Patten report in insisting that there should be ulterior policing and intelligence arrangements outside of the PSNI—namely, MI5.

Lembit �pik: Will the Secretary of State respond to the concern of Liberal Democrats on the opportunity to change the date of the election quickly? We will set a dangerous precedent if a Secretary of State can alter the date of such a profoundly important event as an election effectively by decree.

Lembit �pik: Does the Secretary of State accept that, if he and the Government are acting reasonably, they will get the support of the lower and the upper Houses but that both Houses should have the right to approve any such recommendation?

Peter Hain: I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman felt that I had not answered his question. Of course this would be done by affirmative resolution, but special emergency procedures might also apply, and those procedures are in the Bill in case they are needed. That is the point that I am making.
	The provisions on electoral registration and political donations, which form a large part of the Bill, are also key to moving Northern Ireland forward. We want to modernise still further the registration arrangements in Northern Ireland, safeguarding the dramatic improvements in the accuracy of the register while ensuring that as many people as possible are registered to vote. In allowing us to do this, the registration clauses of the Bill go to the heart of increasing trust and engagement in the political and democratic process.
	The Bill will remove the requirement on the Northern Ireland electorate to register annually to vote. The Northern Ireland Electoral Office will therefore no longer conduct an annual canvass. Instead, in order to ensure that the register is updated and expanded, the chief electoral officer will be given enhanced powers to access data from other public sector bodies to help him to track when individuals change address or become eligible to vote. These reforms will allow resources to be diverted towards raising the number of people registered and, in particular, to targeting groups that are currently under-represented on the register.

Lorely Burt: Can the Secretary of State clarify the role of the Electoral Commission? Clarity would be appreciated on the extent to which the commission will be able to check political parties' compliance with the requirements on donations, whether it will be asked to give an opinion on the extent to which political parties are observing those requirements and what it is to do if it believes that one or more political parties has failed to comply with the law.

Peter Hain: Concerns were expressed to menot particularly in relation to the IRA, but generallyabout the climate in Northern Ireland's political culture, because there has not been the openness to which we have become accustomed since we legislated to change the matter after we came to power. There has not been such openness to the same extent in Northern Ireland, so there was therefore a concern, as part of the consultation, that we allow a period of transition to normalisation to settle in. It was not any particular paramilitary organisation that was a particular concern; it could have been any party or any individual.

Peter Robinson: I get the impression that the Secretary of State is bringing his remarks to a close, but he has not touched on an issue that I was expecting him to deal with. I know that, at one stage, he harboured the ambitious hope of introducing constitutional proposals on changing the way that the Assembly in Northern Ireland operates by way of amendment to this legislation. Is that off the table or will it occur during the lifetime of this legislative process? If it will, can he assure us that there will be a proper debate on what are key issues relating to how Northern Ireland is to be governed?

David Lidington: The heart of the Bill is the section dealing with the proposed devolution of policing and criminal justice. The Opposition agree with the Government that it is right that such matters should in due course be devolved to politicians directly accountable to the people of Northern Ireland, but we need to be clear about the basis on which that will happen. Several interventions in the Secretary of State's speech showed that there is concern among Members on both sides of the House about precisely how the Bill's order-making powers might be applied in future.
	I think that the Government are right to transfer lead responsibility for national security from the police to the Security Service, but it will not be easy to define the boundary between strategic matters and operational matters. By the time policing is devolved, the House will need to have a clearer view than we are able to take at present about matters of accountability and, in particular, the extent to which the Northern Ireland Policing Board and the police ombudsman are to have jurisdiction over matters that touch on terrorism or national security.
	The details of secondary legislation on the devolution of policing must make it clear that, in performing their daily responsibilities, the Chief Constable and the Policing Board will remain independent of Ministers in the Executive. That independence is critical if the police are to continue to make progress in gaining cross-community support throughout Northern Ireland. As both the Secretary of State and I know from visits to cities in Northern Ireland, it is very impressive to hear from local commanders how they are gradually extending what we would regard as normal policing to parts of Northern Ireland that have not had anything remotely like normal policing for the past 30 years or longer.
	We need to accept a third point. The devolution of policing and criminal justice is a desirable objective, but it cannot occur until every political party that appoints Ministers to a devolved Executive has accepted the legitimacy of the police and the courts and is prepared to support those institutions. Support for the police, the courts and the criminal justice system is not an optional extra; nor is it some magnanimous concession that should entitle those offering it to a political reward.
	I want devolution to be restored in Northern Ireland and I want it to extend in due course to policing and criminal justice, but that cannot happen while the republican movement in particular denies the legitimacy of the courts and the police and is willing to let vicious crime, even murder, go unpunished rather than encourage its supporters to give evidence to the proper authorities.
	In case anybody thinks that I am interested only in the misdeeds of republican paramilitaries, I should make it clear that I make no moral distinction between republican paramilitaries and their loyalist counterparts. The Ulster Defence Association and the Ulster Volunteer Force are the bane of the communities whose interests they claim to defend. Loyalist communities need investment, jobs and better education and training, and they need to be rid of drug dealing and the protection rackets. The grip of paramilitary groups is the biggest single deterrent to economic revival and urban regeneration. I welcome the effort being made by some men within loyalism to get the paramilitary gangs to decommission their weapons and put themselves out of business, and I am sure that the Secretary of State and I agree that the sooner that happens the better for everybody concerned, especially people on loyalist estates in Northern Ireland's cities.
	Although I do not make a moral distinction, there is a key political distinction between loyalist paramilitaries and the Provisional IRA. The parties linked to the UDA and the UVF have minimal electoral support; they have no chance of holding office in any devolved Government. By contrast, the provisional republican movement, through Sinn Fein, would be entitled to ministerial office including, as things stand, the position of Deputy First Minister and in time, in all probability, some responsibility for policing or criminal justice. We all have to accept that we cannot have Sinn Fein back in government with their Ministers sharing in the administration of justice while the provisional republican movement refuses to recognise the courts or the police. Such a state of affairs would be grotesque.
	Before the devolution of policing and justice can occur, as proposed in the Bill, we need to see tangible evidence that republicans have made a practical and an ideological commitment to support the rule of law.

David Lidington: At one stage, Ministers in the Irish Government called on the IRA to disbandthe Justice Minister did so recently. I agree that an announcement about disbanding would probably send a more powerful signal to the Unionist community and to democratic nationalists in Northern Ireland than any other single gesture. Instead, too much of the debate about the future devolution of policing has centred on whether and, if so, when Sinn Fein will take up its seats on both the Policing Board and district policing partnerships. Taking seats risks being an empty gesture unless it is a clear demonstration that republicans will henceforward support the PSNI as an institution and work for its success.
	Ideology is important. We cannot have on the Policing Board members of a political party that will not accept either the police or the courts as legitimate, but instead looks to the army council of the provisional IRA as the supposed source of legitimate authority not just in the north but throughout the entire island of Ireland.

David Lidington: My hon. Friend is right. Ideology is important because we are talking about an organisation that takes pride in asserting that it acts in accordance with a consistent ideological position, and a visible shift in ideology would have a very important symbolic impact on republicanism's own followers. However, my hon. Friend is right to say that that ideological change needs to have clear practical expression. That should not only be in the form of a cessation of punishment beatings, or paramilitary assaults, as they are more properly described; it means the cessation of involvement in criminality of all types.
	Let us hear Sinn Fein members urge those of their supporters who witnessed the murder of Robert McCartney to go to the police with their evidence. Let us see republicans working with the police and the other agencies of law and order to make restorative justice a reality of the kind that we have seen elsewhere in the United Kingdom, rather than trying to operate community restorative justice organisations as a private judicial system and an instrument of intimidation and social control. Let us hear Sinn Fein's leaders saying openly that young men and women who believe passionately and honestly in a united Ireland can still find a worthy career in the police service, and that there is no contradiction in having that democratic political objective and having a clear civic duty to pursue criminals and enforce the law with rigour.
	I hope that we can in due course look to the implementation of these clauses on the devolution of policing and criminal justice, but we still have quite a long way to go politically before that becomes a practical possibility.
	I want briefly to touch on three of the other subjects included in the Bill, the first of which is electoral registration. I was concerned by the original Government proposal in the consultation paper to extend the deadline for electoral registration to just 11 days before the poll, and I noted the concerns of the chief electoral officer that such a tight deadline would make it difficult to carry out the checks that would be needed under the Northern Ireland system and might add to the risk of fraud. I therefore welcome the fact that the Government have now decided to introduce safeguards in response to those concerns. We will want to explore the adequacy of those safeguards in Committee.
	That leads me to comment that the rigour not just of those safeguards but of the entire system for electoral registration and, indeed, the other changes in the Bill, such as doing away with the statutory annual canvass, depends critically on the integrity, authority and independence of the chief electoral officer. I have met the current office holder and was impressed by what he told me about how electoral registration is carried out in Northern Ireland. In the light of the importance of that office for the integrity of the entire registration system, I confess to being somewhat uneasy about the fact that the Bill makes the chief electoral officer's reappointment after five years subject to renewal by the Government, whereas at the moment, I understand, he is appointed indefinitely, subject only to good behaviour.
	I am certainly not casting any adverse imputations at the Secretary of State or any of his Ministers if I say that I am uneasy about the prospect of any politician from any political party having it in his power to decide whether the chief electoral officer should or should not be reappointed after five years. One could see how the chief electoral officer might be subjected to a certain amount of political pressure in how he exercised his judgment because he would want to make sure that he got a second term in the job.
	I cannot leave the subject of electoral registration, however, without expressing some regretto take up a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner)that the Government are allowing a different system in Northern Ireland from that in the rest of the United Kingdom, or, more properly, that they are not applying the system of individual registration that is successfully guarding against fraud in Northern Ireland to the rest of the country. I am sorry that the Secretary of State was unable to persuade his Cabinet colleagues to benefit from the experience of Northern Ireland and particularly sad that he was unable to persuade the Secretary of State for Wales to go down that route, and I still hope that, some day soon, the Government may understand that the Northern Ireland example is the one that England, Wales and Scotland should follow.
	On the funding of political parties, my preference and that of my party is for Northern Ireland to be brought as soon as possible fully within the same system of checks and scrutiny as applies to any other part of the United Kingdom under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. We have accepted reluctantly that the fear of intimidation in Northern Ireland makes that final move impossible for now, and I support the Bill's compromise on the reporting of donations in confidence to the Electoral Commission.
	The Bill touches on a further issue to do with party donations. The fact that a large minority of people in Northern Ireland consider themselves to be Irish in terms of both nationality and citizenship clearly has implications for party donations, but we will want to look very closely, in Committee and on Report, at exactly how the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic arrangements for party donations will intersect in the legislation. During the Bill's future stages, we will want some further information about exactly how the Irish Republic defines both Irish citizenship and Irish companies for the purposes of party donations. We will want to be certain that the system of checks that we provide for Northern Ireland is suitably rigorous.
	I wish to say a few words about the proposals for a single energy market. Whenever I talk to those in business or to business representative organisations in Northern Ireland, it soon becomes apparent that they are very clear that they now operate simultaneously in a Northern Ireland market, an island of Ireland market, a United Kingdom market, a British isles market, a European Union market and, indeed, in many cases, a global market. If the proposal for an island of Ireland wholesale energy market involves lower prices and greater choice for energy consumers in Northern Irelandthere might be a particular advantage for business consumers of energyit should be supported. It strikes me as a sensible step in practical co-operation across the United Kingdom-Republic of Ireland border.
	This country and the Republic of Ireland should have the same close, interdependent economic relationships as now exist between any other two neighbours in western Europe and, increasingly, now in central and eastern Europe. I hope that, in due course, we will not rule out integrating that all-Ireland market with the energy market in Great Britain or, for that matter, its inclusion in what I hope will eventually become a genuinely liberal energy market throughout the European Union.
	We welcome many of the proposals in the Bill. We shall not seek to divide the House on Second Reading tonight, but we will want to explore and test the Government's arguments on certain aspects in Committee and on Report, and I invite my hon. Friends to respond to the Bill on that basis.

Mark Durkan: The Bill before us is an odd one. It is something of a dog's breakfast in that it contains all sorts of bits and scraps, some not particularly substantive. Yes, there are important provisions and some welcome ones, but as we will show, the most significant feature of the Bill is what is not in it, rather than what is.
	It is interesting that, introducing the debate, the Secretary of State took a lot of time to deal with the subject of MI5 and there were many interventions on the future of intelligence policing when there is nothing in the Bill that deals directly with that matter. If the Bill made direct provision for the enhanced and expanded role that appears to be envisaged for MI5, that would be good cause to vote against it, even on Second Reading; however, it does not.
	That does not reassure those of us who are concerned about plans for the future of intelligence policinga point that will be developed by my hon. Friends when they speak. We cannot accept the Secretary of State's assurance in relation to MI5 that what has happened in the past will not happen in the future. What basis do we have for accepting such an assurance from a Government who are in denial about what has happened in the past and who, through measures such as the Inquiries Act 2005, have acted precisely and deliberately to make sure that the truth cannot emerge about things that happened in the past, courtesy of MI5.
	In their interventions, hon. Members referred to various paramilitary organisations and terrorist groups. All the terrorist organisations in Northern Ireland have comported themselves as paramilitary organisations, but the sad and shameful reality is that military interests in Northern Irelandnamely, MI5have in the past comported themselves as para-terrorists in their handling of and engagement, involvement, collusion and complicity in all sorts of crimes committed by terrorists. They did not share intelligence that could have been used to apprehend people, to alert people, or to save lives. Such was the nature of its operations that MI5 literally, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) said, conspired to allow people to get away with murder. When the Government seem content to cover up those aspects of the past, I find it hard to accept their assurances about the future.
	The suggestion made was that MI5with its record in Northern Irelandis to be some new feature. Listening to the Secretary of State talk about trying to bring Northern Ireland into line with the rest of the United Kingdom, one might think that Northern Ireland had never had MI5 and its intelligence operatives before. Well, we have, and we have had far too many of them. Trusting the future of intelligence policing to MI5 is like making Herod the children's commissionerit goes against the whole record of experience and legitimate interest.
	MI5 has not shown respect for the rights of the citizens of Northern Ireland, it has not respected life and it has not respected the duties and responsibilities of other law enforcement agencies, and I have seen nothing to tell me that that will change in future. That is why we have fundamental concerns about the plans for the future of intelligence policing. It is all very well the Secretary of State saying that the police service will have operational responsibility when the Security Service advises the police of something: the big question is what about the circumstances in which the Security Service does not advise the police of something, or deliberately misadvises them? All that has happened in the past, and there is nothing to assure us that it will not happen in the future.
	In addition, as the Secretary of State has indicated, intelligence policing in the hands of MI5 will not be subject to any of the scrutiny, challenge or accountability available in relation to the police service in the form of appeals to the Policing Board or the ombudsman's office and, in the context of devolution, challenge in the Assembly. Legitimate national security issues will still have to be addressed but, as I said in an intervention, the Patten report clearly recommended that the Chief Constable report to the Secretary of State on such matters, rather than to devolved bodies and the Policing Board. That is the way forwardstick to the Patten path.

Mark Durkan: I should have thought that a comparison with Herod as children's commissioner indicated that I do not accept that the Security Service should be trusted with a role of such primacy, particularly given its record. It is not as if we have a figmentary concern about the future conduct and performance of MI5 and the quality of its relationship with the police service, as history shows the true and ugly face of such matters.
	The Bill makes a number of provisions in several different areas, and my hon. Friends will deal with political donations, electoral registration and the creation of a single energy market throughout the island of Ireland. Those are important provisions, but there are other things that the Government could have included in the legislation but which they have chosen not to include. As long ago as 2000, the British Government agreed to review whether or not the Human Rights Commission should be given powers to call persons and papers, and to enter and inspect the premises of public authorities. Without those powers, the record shows that its investigations can be hampered and impeded, as happened when it was denied entry to a prison that it wanted to inspect. Such powers are essential if the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission is to comply with the UN Paris principles. Powers to call persons and papers are possessed by human rights commissions throughout the world, including the one in the Republic of Ireland.

Mark Durkan: I accept fully what the hon. Gentleman has said. It reminds me of a conversation that I tried to have with him a few weeks ago in the context of the debate on the Short money about the folly of accepting shallow sweeping assurances from Secretaries of State about what may or may not happen in the future.
	There are other aspects of the comprehensive agreement that would mean that, in restored institutions, we would find it hard to get decisions taken and that there could be gridlock. The content of the comprehensive agreement is wrong and flawed. Fundamentally, parties need to remember that all the issues relating to the workings of the institutions and the agreement did not bring about suspension. They did not bring the institutions down. The institutions were brought down because of other things happening or not happening completely outside them. Resolving those issues should not be a precondition for restoring the institutions. We can address the issues, as we were addressing them constructively, in the context of a review. The best circumstances for a review to take place would be in the context of working restored institutions, because then every party would have a lot more confidence about the real willingness of other parties to engage in those sort of institutions and processes. It is that lack of confidence that is at the root of the deadlock and stand-off at the moment.
	Of course, it is not just what is in the comprehensive agreement that has worried those of us who stand fully by the Good Friday agreement, but the fact that we were told in a statement by the hon. Member for Belfast, East that the comprehensive agreement had alongside it 100 side deals and secret understandings in the form of more than 100 clarifying answers, notes and letters. We were told that about the comprehensive agreement at a time when the Government were still telling us that there would be no more side deals and we had seen the last of them. In a while, we will probably be told that there has not been a side deal in two months. The fact is that we can trust neither what is in the comprehensive agreement, nor what we have not been shown outside of it. Again, I warn the Government against the misadventure of turning to the comprehensive agreement and things like it for new material for legislation because that will not give us a platform for progress, but just create a political tug of war in a dead end, which will not take anything forward.
	The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) mentioned that provisions on the devolution of policing and justice are at the heart of the Bill. We need to remember that the power to devolve policing and justice already existsit is not created by the Bill. The Bill does not do much one way or another in respect of that basic power, which is in section 4(2) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.
	The Bill contains provisions that are somewhere between a figment and a fig leaf. It contains provisions that may or may not operate or be called upon, such as the power to appoint a Minister of justice in a way other than by d'Hondt. There may or may not be a joint Ministry and rotating junior and senior Ministers. The Bill provides for all sorts of things that might not happen. We know, as my earlier remarks and the Secretary of State's comments have shown, that much of the more serious stuff that will happen regarding future policing, such as that involving MI5, lies outside the Bill. We have been given a figment, or fig leaf, so that some people can pretend that the big, outstanding issue that kept them off the Policing Board and prevented them from supporting the policing arrangements has been resolved and that their demand for the devolution of justice and policing has been met.
	The scale to which some devolution has already taken place should not be underestimated. The Policing Board already has quite a number of the powers and functions that were formerly exercised by the Secretary of State and the Northern Ireland Office. That was shown graphically when the Secretary of State and the NIO tried to intervene on and influence the Policing Board on the position of the then Chief Constable, Ronnie Flanagan. A similar thing happened in response to the police ombudsman's report on Omagh. It cannot be emphasised enough that the Policing Board proved that it had devolved powers and independence. Sinn Fein has refused to be part of the devolution that has already taken place.
	There is a paradox about Sinn Fein's position on the outstanding issues of devolution. The DUP must be delightedits members must be grinning like horses chewing thistleswhenever Sinn Fein effectively gives it a veto on the position on policing. Sinn Fein's big, macho position is that it will not move on policing until the DUP agrees a date for the devolution of justice and policing. I do not detect any great hurry on the part of the DUP to see Sinn Fein on the Policing Board and entering into the arrangements. The DUP will pocket that veto and say, That will do nicely, thank you very much. It is quite happy that Sinn Fein's position has given it a veto on the future of policing, the devolution of justice and policing and devolution. People need to understand that there is a ruse going on and that the Bill is somewhere between a figment and a fig leaf.
	We want the full devolution of justice and policing and the full outworking of the agreement and the Patten report. That is why we want progress to be made on the restoration of the institutions. We want the Governments to show real intent on the talk of determination and the talk of time lines in which they have engaged. They should set a date for restoring the political institutions, put it to the parties and flush out where the parties stand on all the institutions of the agreement. They should, not least, flush out where the parties stand on the democratic policing arrangements.

Lembit �pik: As you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, since the last time that we had a debate on Northern Ireland, the Liberal Democrats have elected a new leader. There is a new shadow Cabinet, but I am still here. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell), in his benevolence, has granted me the opportunity to continue to speak on Northern Ireland and, indeed, Wales, which proves that he is far from Ming the merciless, but Ming the merciful. Since the last Ming dynasty lasted 275 years, I am both relieved and delighted to have found favour with the new emperor.
	I thank the Secretary of State for introducing the Bill and explaining its various provisions. On the whole, Liberal Democrats support the motivation behind them, but, once again, we have several serious concerns. We will thus try to improve the Bill as it progresses through the House.
	The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) correctly pointed out that we had a debate on the possible unintended consequences of the Short money for Sinn Fein. I remind him and the House that the problem with that debate was not the sincere intent of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, but the confused attempt by the Leader of the House to explain what was going on, which led many Liberal Democrat Members to vote as the hon. Gentleman would have liked: against the proposal. I say to the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson), who is likely to wind up today's debate, that it is important that a lesson is learned from that debate. Individuals have become cynical and think that while the Government might intend to do one thing today, a future Secretary of State or Minister may do another thing tomorrow. In Committee, I intendI hope that hon. Members of all parties will do thisto ensure that we really understand the consequences of such a wide-ranging Bill. The hon. Member for Foyle described the Bill as a dog's breakfast, but I would more charitably describe it as a catch-all Bill that covers many matters. The worst thing that could happen would be that the Bill had precisely the opposite outcome to that intended by the Government, but that is more than possible, given the history of other legislation.
	Let me turn to the details of the Bill. We have little worry about the intention in clause 1 of introducing anonymous registration in Northern Ireland to mirror clause 10 of the Electoral Administration Bill. As the Secretary of State indicated, the power would allow individuals to register anonymously if they feared that their safety, or that of any person in their home, would be at risk if they could be identified from the electoral register. Given the changing threat of terrorism in Northern Ireland, I can only say that I hope that the number of people for whom the provision might be necessary will be small and decrease over time.
	I am curious about how the Government will achieve anonymous registration. The clause allows the Secretary of State to lay an Order in Council to achieve such registration. However, will the Minister explain why such a measure is not simply in the Bill? Why, once again, do we have to go through the increasingly unsatisfactory Order-in-Council process? Why is it not possible to extend the provisions on electoral administration to Northern Ireland now because the Government could thus achieve their aim earlier than they would by using the Bill? Perhaps there is a procedural explanation, but I have not heard it, so I hope that the Minister will deal with my point.
	We are disappointed that the Government intend to abolish the annual canvass that was introduced by the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Act 2002. The annual canvass has proved to be pretty successful in Northern Ireland. The introduction of individual registration, with personal identifiers, has been a matter for debate throughout the whole of the United Kingdom. In Northern Ireland it has led to a much more accurate and robust electoral register than those compiled under the system of household registration. There are roughly 1.2 million people on the register, which is an estimated 91 per cent. of the voting age population.
	I understand the Government's concern at the continued decline in numbers of people registering, and we must make sure that the procedures are not so onerous that we are discouraging registration. That is a fair point, but I fear that by extending the period of time between canvasses to 10 years, the Government have back-pedalled far too far and will, as an unintended consequence, achieve the exact opposite of what they seek to achieve. Can the Minister, in his summation, explain why a period of 10 years was chosen? Would not a shorter period be more sensibleif not an annual canvass, then a canvass every four years to ensure that the registers are comprehensive in advance of Assembly elections?
	There is a logic to tying the registration of individual voters to the timing of Assembly elections. It is not clear to me why the Government would choose a period10 yearswhich will necessarily alter the synchronisation of the electoral registration process with the elections, which should be on a fixed time scale once the situation normalises.

Lembit �pik: The right hon. Gentleman is correct. In theory, there is every opportunity for people to register, but it takes some proactivity from the individual elector to do that, whereas the suggested process of registration, if I understand it correctly, produces some back pressure to encourage individual registration. If there is to be a formalised period between registrations, the Government should seriously consider synchronising that process with elections that happen on a fixed time scale.
	The Secretary of State and the Minister may want to consider another suggestion. Would it be possible for the chief electoral officer to send to every household every 12 months a sheet of paper containing the details of members of the household who are on the register? Perhaps the Minister intends that to happen anyway, in which case I would be delighted to hear that reassurance. It would allow people to confirm that their details were correct, or to ask for certain different people living in that household to be registered. It would mean that every individual did not have to re-register every year, which is what the Government want to change, but we would still have a more accurate picture every year of the state of the register. The system of individual registration has worked in Northern Ireland, and it would be wrong to undermine it.
	I turn briefly to clause 8 and the changes that it makes to the tenure of the chief electoral officer. I understand that the current chief electoral officer is due to retire shortly, and that the process to appoint a successor is well under way. Can the Minister confirm to me that the candidates for the position were aware of the impending changes to tenure? That does not relate directly to the Bill, but if the Minister could clear that up in his comments or by way of intervention, that would be helpful.
	Clause 10 deals with a more important issue. The power to change the date of an election by statutory instrument is a proposal with which we fundamentally disagree. The House may recall that in 2003, the Government postponed the date of elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly, not once, but twice. Contrary to the concerns of the right hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), I remind him that on both occasions we criticised the Government for interfering with the date of the elections. I realise of course that the provision would not allow the Secretary of State to postpone elections, just to bring them forward. Nevertheless, this is a fundamental constitutional issue and should not be decided by way of secondary legislation.
	In reply to an intervention, the Secretary of State said something that worried me even more. Asked whether he would insist on proceeding with an alteration to the date of an election even if the parties in the House opposed it, he said, It is not something I would want to do. The inference was that it was something that he would be willing to do, regardless.
	To take a salient example of a democratic deficit, let us remember that the Government were elected with roughly one third of the vote. That means that two thirds of the vote was for parties that opposed the Government's manifesto, yet the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said that he would be willing to force through a change to the date of an election even if the parties representing two thirds of the electorate opposed it. The position is worse than that. If the Secretary of State is willing to do that, there is every expectation that he would be willing to ignore the overwhelming view of the parties in Northern Ireland. That is why I am so concerned, and it is to some extent why we were opposed to the change on 17 March 2003, the first change to the date of the elections at that time, and once again we criticised the change on 12 May 2003.
	I am not satisfied that the Secretary of State has resolved our concern. More than that, Members of the House and of another place should have the opportunity to debate fully the merits of such a move, and to propose such amendments as Parliament considers necessary. I cannot see why a Secretary of State would be so unwilling to countenance a reasonable debate on the Floor of the House and in another place, if he was so sure of his ground.
	Despite the contrary claims, I recall that I and others thought that the Government were trying to help one particular party at the timethe Ulster Unionist partyby changing the date on at least one of those occasions. I remember predicting that that would have only a beneficial effect for the Democratic Unionist party, which at the time did not seem to be a particularly close friend of the Government. We know that that relationship has since been mended, and that the DUP and others are a little worried about the notional nature of the friendships that the Government develop with parties from Northern Ireland.
	Let me be clear that there is much to commend the members of the Democratic Unionist party. They are fine and pleasant people one and all, but it is the vicarious way in which one party finds favour, and then another, that causes us concern in regard to legislation that seems to be framed in order to allow Ministers to alter election dates for what we might call reasons of expediency. In any event, we cannot allow democracy and its routine operation to be reduced to a short debate on the Committee Corridor, which would deny a vast number of the Members the opportunity to discuss such an important issue. We cannot accept the inclusion of the clause in the Bill.
	I am also disappointed by the provisions in part 4. Although this part aligns donation controls in Northern Ireland more closely with those in England, Scotland and Wales, it does not achieve full transparency. Northern Ireland political parties and regulated donees will continue to be exempt from the full donation controls until October 2007, after which they will be required to comply with most, but not all, of part IV of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. From November 2007 until 2010 the new measures will require Northern Ireland parties only to submit donation returns to the Electoral Commission on a confidential basis. I fully appreciate that concerns still exist about the publication of donors in Northern Ireland, because of fears for their safety. The new measures are a step in the right direction, but can the Secretary of State guarantee that full disclosure will be achieved by 2010?
	Let us be realistic. Even if the Government think that the process must be opaque in order to get everybody to buy into it, they need to take a reality check. For example, I doubt whether, even under those more generous arrangements, Sinn Fein would put on its list of donors the Northern bank, which has been more than generous in making a recent donation to that organisation and its paramilitary colleagues. Paramilitarism and illegal action will continue whether or not we require transparency, and I therefore counsel the Minister that we can achieve that objective a lot more quickly. We are likely to have elections in that period of time, and various parties could benefit from the opaqueness that will guarantee them greater funds than would otherwise be the case.
	I also have concerns about extending the categories of permissible donors. When the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 was progressing through Parliament, Liberal Democrat Members recognised, in the absence of any similar legislation in the Republic of Ireland, that it would be useful to include Northern Ireland in the ban on receiving foreign donations, because parties that operate on an all-Ireland basis would be able to receive such donations through their offices in the Republic. If the DUP were to put its political headquarters in Dublin, it would have no trouble in obtaining international funds. That point applies to every party, a number of which already do exactly that. [Interruption.] There are, as the right hon. Member for North Antrim has suggested, other, more exotic solutions to the problem, and I look forward to his proposing them in Committee.
	The Liberal Democrats agreed to the exemption of Northern Ireland from those provisions on the express condition that the Government would urgently seek to persuade the Government of southern Ireland to introduce similar legislation, or at least to find some way of excluding parties that also operate in Northern Ireland from their own funding arrangements. Will the Minister tell me whether such discussions have taken place? If they have taken place, the Government have been coy about them. Have the Government actively pursued that matter with the Irish Government? If not, will the Minister explain why we should take seriously the Government's implicit intention of normalising that important element of funding arrangements for political parties in a part of the United Kingdom, namely the north of Ireland?
	The Electoral Commission also has concerns about those provisions. In its view:
	it is difficult to achieve openness and transparency with such a regime.
	The commission has stated that it would like the regime to be clarified on the face of the Bill, and it has accordingly asked for a clear definition of the acceptable tests of Irish citizenship in order for the recipients of donations to check the permissibility of donors. Will the Minister take on board those concerns and table amendments accordingly in Committee? If he is unsure about taking that step, will he make a commitment to hold cross-party talks before the Bill enters Committee, because we would be happy to draft amendments that the Government could then accept?
	Finally, I shall turn to a matter that other hon. Members have already mentioned, namely the arrangements for the devolution of policing and justice to the Assembly. The Liberal Democrats are a devolutionist party, and it has been party policy for many years to devolve those functions to the Assembly, and I therefore welcome the sections of the Bill that will enable policing and justice arrangements to be devolved in any form chosen by the Assembly. However, given the importance of policing to society, we must be careful about when the functions are devolved, and I support much of what the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) has said about policing in Northern Ireland and the insightful points made by the hon. Member for Foyle.
	We all agree that Sinn Fein should come in from the cold on the devolution of policing and justice and that it must take its place on the Policing Board and accept the current policing arrangements. With some justification, the SDLP and the DUP have criticised Sinn Fein for always asking for more on policing, because Sinn Fein has got quite a lot of what it has asked for from this Government but still says that that is not enough, which is a practice that has tried the patience of us all. The Bill includes arrangements for the full devolution of policing, which can happen only when we are sure that Sinn Fein will not act as the dog-in-the-manger party by bleating that there has not been sufficient change to policing in Northern Ireland. Compromises have been made in response to Sinn Fein's requirements, and Sinn Fein now needs to compromise in return.
	The Northern Ireland Assembly has been suspended for almost five years. From the Assembly elections in 1998 until the beginning of the current suspension in October 2002, the Assembly went through a start-stop process in which there were various periods of suspension. Even when the Assembly was functioning, there were various crises and resignations involving the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, and I accept that it would have been quite wrong to devolve policing and justice functions to the Assembly in such an unstable situation. We cannot allow something as important as policing to be devolved to an institution which does not look durable, because it would be disastrous if policing were in the hands of an Assembly Minister one week and a Minister at Westminster the next. Of all the areas in life for which Parliament is responsible, policing is surely one of the most fundamental. There are some hurdles to overcome, some of which relate to political buy-in, primarily by Sinn Fein.
	Ministers must be careful what they say about crime. For the Secretary of State to discuss pure crime implies a certain naivety about the difference between proper terrorism and proper crime. In recent debates in this Chamber, I have become annoyed, because Ministers appear sincerely to think that Northern Ireland terrorism should be treated differently from international terrorism. Although the Secretary of State claims to see those things equally, as DUP Members have rightly pointed out, they are treated differently. If anyone thinks that a large proportion of organised crime in Northern Ireland is not directly related to organised paramilitarism in Northern Ireland and that money gained from organised crime does not seep across into organised terrorism, they are dreaming and do not understand how paramilitary funding has taken place in the Province.
	I counsel Ministers to take a more insightful and circumspect view of how they define crime in Northern Ireland and of how they seek to differentiate it from terrorism. The Government have created that problem by repeatedly describing international terrorism as motiveless, while stating that Northern Irish terrorism has motives that we can understand and negotiate away. Although I am tempted to go further down that path, I shall simply say that in Committee we must ensure that what is put into the legislation does not utterly contradict the reality on the ground in Northern Ireland.
	Ministers must be able to answer the questions put by the hon. Gentleman. If they cannot do so, I will be concerned that once again we are creating unintended consequences, overlaps and ricochet effects that will come back to bite not the Government, but security and policing in Northern Ireland. When the time comes to give those powers to the Assembly, we must be sure that we are devolving them to a secure and stable institution and that the legislation is also secure and stable.
	The Bill contains much of merit, but we are concerned by the changes, one or two of which are in principle, that will serve to create instability. We want to see a proper debate and a willingness to modify the canvassing period for electoral registration, more robust consideration of the principles at stake on altering the date of an Assembly election by an Order in Council alone, and greater transparency when it comes to donations to parties. All those matters require proper attention and debate.
	As ever, Liberal Democrats will seek to be as constructive as we can. We will not oppose the Bill's Second Reading, nor the programme motion, which, as ever on Northern Ireland matters these days, provides sufficient time for consideration. However, we will be eager to have informal debates with the Government, if they find that easier, or formal Divisions with them if they fail to listen, in order to try to make the changes that we wish to see in a Bill that covers a great deal and serves potentially to destabilise quite a lot.

Eddie McGrady: My hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) strongly outlined the problem that we have with clauses 19 to 22, which deal with the devolution of justice and policing. Interventions on the Secretary of State were numerous and perceptive in that respect. These four clauses are mainly technical in nature and, one could argue, cosmetic in purpose. They may prove almost irrelevant to what is actually achieved.
	It is right to stress that the devolution of justice powers has already been partly achieved. Many of the functions that were formerly exercised by the Northern Ireland Office are now being handled by the Policing Board, at times in opposition to the attitude of the Northern Ireland Office, be it in dealing with the huge challenges of the Omagh report, ensuring proper handling of intelligence by the police, or creating, for the first time ever, a human resource strategy for the police. Patten's recommendations have been at least 75 to 80 per cent. implemented.
	The powers that are being sought already exist. Section 4(2) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 gives the Secretary of State the power to devolve justice. All that the Bill does is make some technical provisions to facilitate that. Only one of those has any real political significanceit allows the Secretary of State to make provision that d'Hondt is not to apply to filling the justice portfolio in the event that the parties decide to adopt some other method of choosing heads of Departments, such as electing joint Ministers. However, when negotiations on the devolution of justice get under way, the parties might well decide to apply d'Hondt. The provision might therefore be completely unnecessary.
	As many Members have said, it would perhaps have made more sense to consider whether legislation was needed after the parties had agreed the shape of devolution, when the full legislative implications could have been properly and fully assessed. It seems to me and my party that the only reason why it is being done beforehand is to help Sinn Fein to change its position on policing on the ground that it has won some wonderful new legislation on the devolution of policing, despite the fact that devolved policing powers are already in the existing legislation. I do not think that that will succeed, because Sinn Fein has no intention of joining the Policing Board. The Secretary of State's announcement of a new membership clearly indicates that even the Northern Ireland Office recognises that the probability of Sinn Fein joining in on policing lies at some point in the distant future, if ever.
	Sinn Fein says that it needs to take control of the securocratsits termin the police through the devolution of justice. Yet again, it has missed the point, because at the same time as the Government are legislating on the devolution of justice in the Bill, they are taking away responsibility for intelligence gathering on national security from the PSNI and giving it to MI5. That has been a focal point of contention throughout several Members' contributions. The whispered justification for this is that when one has devolved justice one cannot have a devolved Justice Minister who may be of a particular political party. However, that is not the argument. The issue of who gets intelligence informationthe devolved Justice Minister or the Secretary of Stateis a separate issue from that of who gathers itthe PSNI or MI5. Clearly, as Patten envisaged, the PSNI will not report to the devolved Justice Minister on national security, but rather to the Secretary of State. However, also as Patten envisaged, the Chief Constable should do the reporting, not MI5.
	There are several reasons for that. First, the PSNI has undergone the Patten reforms; MI5 has not. Much of the community in Northern Ireland, be it nationalist or Unionist, has no confidence in MI5 and does not identify with it. That is why it would be destabilising for it to have such an enlarged role. Secondly, as the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) said, in Northern Ireland organised crime and subversive activity go hand in hand. Reference was made to the Northern bank robbery. That is why one organisation should be in the lead in monitoring the situationthe PSNI. Giving that over to MI5 carries with it the huge risk that it, like the old RUC special branch, will hog the intelligence and not share it, where it does not suit them, with the police who are responsible for prosecutions. People have got away with murder in the past as a result of that.
	Thirdly, Northern Ireland has a much more accountable informer-handling regime under the PSNI following the Patten report, the Stevens report into collusion with the security forces and other activities, and the Omagh report. Taking intelligence gathering from the PSNI diminishes those changes. Moreover, how can we have confidence that MI5 will operate by the same standards? How can we have confidence, for instance, that Torrens Knight, a convicted sectarian mass murderer, will not again be recruited by MI5? Fourthly, the Patten report explicitly stated that
	the police service must remain equipped to detect and deal with terrorist activity, and for this they will need good intelligence capability.
	The regime proposed by the NIO means that Patten is being broken.
	All that is being proposed at a time when it has been recently revealed that MI5 failed to pass on warnings about the Omagh bombing. Who knows whether that tragedy could have been averted had that warning been passed on? Now, I see that the head of MI5, in whom we are meant to have great confidence, has refused to meet the Omagh families, who suffered such a tragedy at that time. Is that accountability? Is that transparency? Is that Patten?
	Just when we have overcome the old RUC concept of the force within a force that was the special branch, the Government seem determined to create a force outside a force. Just when nationalist confidence in the police is growing, the Government are creating a new force that will detract from and perhaps destroy that new confidence. The Government need to reconsider their proposal on MI5's role in Northern Ireland intelligence gathering. If they continue along this path, our community and the prosecution of crime will be greatly diminished.
	I should like briefly to deal with some of the comments that were made in the context of the legislation on fundraising for political parties. Disapplying part 4 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 to Northern Ireland was a logical approach to a specific local problem and circumstances. I hope that hon. Members appreciate that political fundraising in Northern Ireland presents distinct challenges, different from those in England, Wales or even the Republic of Ireland.
	We have not advanced far enough down the road of confidence. Members of my political party could not and would not make donations to the party if their names were published. They would be fearful for their lives and those of their families and for their businesses. There is no doubt about thatand I am talking about the present day, not past history. Circumstances are changing and Northern Ireland has moved on substantially nearly eight years after the Good Friday agreement, but the residue of a problem remains, namely, sectarianism continues to fester and intimidation persists. In the past, individuals have been intimidated, attacked and ostracised because they are donors to and supporters of a specific political party, not only mine. I could give specific examples, but not on the Floor of the House and not to the embarrassment of the people concerned.
	For those legitimate reasons, many people seek certainty that their personal details will be kept private if they donate to a political party. Given the experiences of the past, that is not too much to ask. The contributions are made to a political party and to democracy.

Eddie McGrady: The intimidation comes from the paramilitaries attached to political parties other than those represented in the House. The hon. Lady's constituency is more benign than those that most of us have the joy of representing. However, I am sure that she could find examples of such intimidation because it is not unknown in North Down, where sectarianism has raised its head on many occasions. I make my comments in that context.
	We want to acknowledge the Government's efforts to tackle the problems. I recognise that Northern Ireland cannot be given exceptional treatment for ever, but I fear that the proposal to register donors' details with the Electoral Commission when donations of more than 5,000 are made will, even with privacy provisions, deter many people from making donations. There is a further lead-in period to full compliance with the 2000 Act and we welcome that. However, we should like to believe that it was not set in stone and that, beyond October 2007 and 2010, the position would be re-examined in a practical way.
	We should consider how things have developed and changed in Northern Ireland to make it safe for people who want to support democracy through democratic political parties. We should ensure that they are given the protection that they need so that they, their families and their businesses will not be danger. We have not reached that point yet. I should like to believe that, before my time is over, we will reach it, but it has not yet happened. We acknowledge what the Government have done and what they have taken on board. We hope that the position will be re-examined in future.

Patrick Cormack: It is a sobering moment because the words that the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) just uttered should be in all our minds throughout the debate. He told the House that people in his constituency and others would be afraid for their lives, their families, their property and their businesses if it were known that they made a donation to his party, or the party that the right hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) represents or the party that the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) represents.
	We must be careful to acknowledge that what the hon. Gentleman said is a fact. He is an honourable man and I believe implicitly all that he said. Having heard the evidence to our Select Committee in the past few weeks, we must recognise that, sadly, we are not yet dealing with a normal part of the United Kingdom. That should inform all our discussions and decisions. I shall therefore go along with the hon. Gentleman's plea for anonymity for an indefinite period because it is made with great personal knowledge and we should respect that. I am sure that all members of legitimate parties from the Province recognise that.
	The Bill was described as a dog's breakfast by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), who leads the SDLP. It is not made up entirely, as I said to the right hon. Member for North Antrim, of Pedigree Chum, but several other ingredients. We should concentrate on two specific aspects of it. First, we should consider the pro-consular powers that it grants the Secretary of State. I do not impugn his integrity or good intentions, but not only the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I am nervous about giving pro-consular powers to a Secretary of State over such an important issue as determining the dates of elections.
	My misgivings were reinforced by the answer that the Secretary of State gave to my intervention, to which the hon. Member for Foyle referred. I asked the right hon. Gentleman whether, if the legitimate Northern Ireland parties that are represented here todaythe DUP, the SDLP and the UUP, perhaps together with the Alliance party, which is also fully democratichad misgivings about the timing of an election, he would heed them. The answer was not reassuring. He said that he would be reluctant to proceed, but he did not say that he would take notice of such misgivings.
	We have to be conscious that the Bill gives power to the Secretary of State to determine the crucial issue of the date of elections. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik)I am glad that he has retained his portfolioalso referred to the order-making powers for which the measure paves the way. I know that the Minister will agree that that is an unsatisfactory way of legislating and it applies only to the Province because we do not deal with matters in Scotland, Wales or England through order-making powers exclusively in the House. However, it is increasingly the pattern for Northern Ireland and will remain so until we have devolution.

Ian Paisley: The Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill has certainly been well named. The miscellaneous provisions seem to be a smokescreen to hide what the Bill is really about. Its main thrust, and the Government's main motivation in introducing it at this time, is to deal with policing and justice under devolution.
	The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) admitted tonight that it is all very well to talk about having Sinn Fein on the Policing Board, and about its members taking part in policing and justice, but there should be no place on the Policing Board for anyone associated with terrorism and with the crime that follows hard on the heels of the terrorist organisations, whether they are the UVF's nominee, who is now on the Policing Board, or not. Of course, if that had happened to be a DUP man, he would have been kicked off. He would not have seen daylight. He would not have been allowed to eat his bread. I myself, even while a Member of this House, was not permitted to enter Downing street for two years. I was looked upon as a leper and was not allowed in through the door. It did not do me any harmactually, it did me good. But I am used to the knocks of the House. I am a democrat and I believe that, in the end, democracy will win this battle.
	There is another thing that I must say, which is that we cannot have in the Government of Northern Ireland those who are still in terrorist organisations, and in fact control, run and dictate those terrorist organisations. I did not lock the door at Stormont. I had nothing to do with it. Who brought down Stormont? The representatives of the Government and the Secretary of Statehe brought down the Stormont Administration. They are the people who brought Stormont down. Why did they do it? Because the terrorist activities of Sinn Fein were quite open and people saw what it was doing.
	I never voted for the Executive when I was at Stormontneither did my party and neither did many othersbut others voted for them, including the Social Democratic and Labour party. They voted into power those who were active in terrorist work and they sat down with them. They talk about excluding people. It is a terrible thing to be excluded. The Minister got up and said that those people will not be excluded. I hope he gets up now and says that we will not be excluded either.
	Let us be very fair about itwe were excluded, but we did not argue about that. In fact, we were referred to as Ministers who should not be allowed to be Ministers, but under the terms of the agreement the law said that we could be Ministers. Still people tried to exclude us, but what good did it do? Did it convert Sinn Fein? Did the leopard change its spots or the Ethiopian his skin? Not likely. They became more and more aggressive, and, even today, Sinn Fein has only one word to say, which is that the Democratic Unionist party is calling the shots and keeping it out of government.
	The majority of people in Northern Ireland, whether Protestant or Roman Catholic, do not want terrorists in the Government of Northern Ireland. That is the opinion of the vast majority of people, and the House needs to learn that. We cannot tolerate terrorists in any Government of Northern Ireland. Of course, if the Bill goes through, the Government seem to think that eventually we could have a Sinn Feiner as the head of the police and the head of the Department. They are arguing now that we could have two people involvedthis matter of having twos is popular. We could have a Sinn Feiner and someone else in charge of the police.
	I wonder when Sinn Fein and the IRA will come with their millions of pounds that they stole from the Northern bank. When will they put that on the table and say, We are going to finish with our terrorism.? We do not see repentance, and it should be a repentance not to be repented of, but it has not come. Therefore, the Bill looks away into the distant future. It is nothing to do with today, tomorrow, next week or Christmas. Does anybody believe that, with the standing of Sinn Fein today in Northern Ireland, it will give up its violence and its terrorism?
	The House, in its wisdom, set up independent commissions. Those independent commissions have met and looked at the situation. They have told in their reports that terrorism is not over. I heard the Secretary of State at the Dispatch Box today telling us it was all settled and all over. It is not all over. The Government's own commissions said that the police had informed them that the IRA still had guns. We were told all the guns were gone, but no one could say that all the guns were gone because no one knew how many guns it had. There was no inventory and no proper challenge.
	We wanted something that could be seen and that people could depend on. That did not come about. The clergymen who were involved admitted to my party when they met us that they had been brought to the place not by the British Governmentthey were not appointed by the British Governmentbut by the IRA. One of them then said that the IRA never was engaged in violence anyway, such is the credibility of the people who were supposed to verify whether the arms were done away with.
	Now we have this Bill. I have sat as a Member of the House for a long time, and I have heard Government after GovernmentTory and Laboursay, We would like to pass legislation, but there is a lack of parliamentary time. How is it that we are getting time tonight for something that cannot and will not be accomplished by passing the Bill? The House can pass as many Bills as it likes. That will not accomplish the doing away with terrorism, nor will it alter the fact that there will not be devolution in Northern Ireland until the terrorists are exiledput out of business. We need to recognise that.
	We are called here to waste our time and to argue about points that are not really in the debating Chamber, because they are not going to be dealt with. SDLP Members are worrying about the election of a First Minister and a Deputy First Minister. They need not worry in any way whatever. They can enjoy 17 March and even drink green beer, because that is not going to come about.
	Here we are in the House, which is the signal to the world of democracy, and parliamentary democracy at that. We have been called here by the Government to hear their spokesman going on and on in a long speech, but this is like a canary in a cage: plenty of activity, but no progress. There cannot be progress until the House opens its eyes wide and says, We cannot have terrorists in the Government of any part of this United Kingdom.
	When the Government and the House come to do that, there will be a movea move in the right direction for democracy. I hope it comes sooner rather than later, but I think it will be latermaybe much later, after we have done what we are doing in the House tonight.

David Anderson: Any part that relates to the impasse that we have been in for the past seven years or to anything that prevents us from moving forward and giving people a sense of control over their own destiny, which they voted for seven years ago.
	There is no doubt that the Bill is a challenge to the right hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley)indeed, the devolution process has been a challenge from day onebut the people of Ireland and their politicians have shown in recent years that they can rise to that challenge when given the opportunity to do so. The fact that at times the process has stalled and, worse, gone into reverse, must not stop us from making progress now. This is not just about Northern Ireland. It is about everyone in Great Britain: everyone who wants to see progress, everyone who wants to see peace and security, everyone who wants to see a massive reduction in the number of troops in Northern Ireland, and everyone who wants to see the people of Northern Ireland moving together in a positive and modern manner. The Bill lays the foundations for such progress. There is a long way to go, but it lays those foundations.
	Once again, the people of Northern Ireland will be represented by people who are directly accountable to them, with real control over things that really matter to them. Once again education, health, social services and transport will be part of the local remit. Local people and their representatives will control economic development, agriculture and regeneration. Culture, arts, leisure and planning matters will all be the responsibility of an Assembly with real links to the people who matter.
	As one who is involved in the whole devolution process in every part of these islands, I believe that this is a real chance for us to deliver what people really want and need. As one who was sadly disappointed when the people of my part of the country rejected devolution, I can only say that I believe the result would have been different there had we been given the range of powers and responsibilities that are once again within the grasp of the people of Northern Ireland. The Bill goes further, however. I have heard what has been said today and I understand all the issues, but if the Assembly agrees and if the people give the Executive the right to proceed, it will be possible to run the police and criminal justice system on the ground in Northern Ireland.

David Anderson: We can all learn from our mistakes. I have learnt from mine. That is why I am here: otherwise I would still be digging coal to keep the lights on.
	Since I came to the House, I have been closely involved in most of the debates on issues involving Northern Ireland. I lobbied hard to become a member of both the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and the Northern Ireland Grand Committee. I did that because for many years I had worked with people on the ground in Northern Irelandgood, hard-working people who were trying to find a resolution to end years of misery and strife that, as always, hit the least well off worst. I am talking about public sector workers, great folk, people who were on the front line in every sense, people who really knew what the word interface meant.
	During many of the debates that we have had over the past 10 months, I have continued to observe and understand the deep-seated feelings that have been expressed today by Members throughout the Chamber. I also understand that we must try to move forward, and the Bill may well constitute a big step in that direction. We cannot pull back at this stage. The Bill removes many legislative barriers to progress. It introduces a more transparent and accountable electoral process; it gives people and politicians the tools with which to do the job; it gives us a chance once again to give direct control of day-to-day life to the people who really matter; it gives us a chance to build on the process that was apparent during the short time in which the Assembly sat during the final days of the last millennium; and it gives us a chance to show the good work that was done when the Assembly reconvened after the suspension in 2000.
	One of the things that kept me going throughout the debates when the devolution process broke down was being told by colleagues that, during the time when the Assembly sat, they were amazed at how well people worked across community and cultural barriers. I believe that that was because people were directly accountable. No longer were they dealing with representatives who were remote; their representatives could stand up and speak on their behalf, and affect their lives in a way that had not been possible before. That is the pressure that real accountability puts on politicians. If they are one step removed, they can always blame someone else, but when they have the power, the responsibility and the means to deliver for people, it certainly focuses their minds.
	The time has come for us to re-engage with that accountability. We owe it to the people of Northern Ireland and to the people of Great Britain. Any ideological or structural objections need to be sorted out and removed. This is the way forward, and we can move forward by supporting the Bill.

Nigel Dodds: Others have also tried comparing Northern Ireland to South Africa, but it is not very helpful because such comparisons are not at all accurate. We are talking about people associated with a terrorist organisation that is illegal under the lawpeople whom the Dublin Government indicated they would not have in their Cabinet in any capacity, let alone in policing and justice capacities. The International Monitoring Commission report pointed out that such organisations are still actively involved in intelligence gathering and criminality. Surely the hon. Gentleman is not seriously suggesting that the people of Northern Ireland would accept for one minute that such organisations should have some involvement in the administration of policing and justice.
	The hon. Member for Blaydon said that he regretted the fact that his constituents rejected devolution. One reason that he ventured for such rejection was that insufficient powers were offered, and that, had they been offered the same powers locally that we in Northern Ireland are being offered, they might have grabbed the opportunity. Well, if his constituents had been offered the prospect of gangsters connected with the Mafia and other criminals running the local police force, they might have been even more opposed to devolution than they were when they rejected it.

Nigel Dodds: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and this issue, which was fully debated during the election campaign for this House not so long ago, doubtless contributed to the success of our party. We made sure that the devolution of policing and justice could happen only with the agreement of Unionists in Northern Ireland via a cross-community vote in the Assembly.
	I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) on the attitude that Sinn Fein and any party that aspires not just to run policing and justice, but to be in government, must adopt. They must support the forces of law and order and the administration of justice, and demonstrate such support not just by taking seats on the Policing Board or in the district policing partnerships. We must remember that members of Sinn Fein took their places in the Northern Ireland Executive and still went about their criminalitydrug dealing, racketeering, intimidation, murder and all the restso that they could be in government and undermine everything that good government stands for. Simply taking one's seat on the Policing Board or in a DPP is not sufficient in itself. Sinn Fein have to make it clear that they support policing on the ground in practical ways, and that they are giving a lead in their local communities. Anything short of that disqualifies that party and any other party that takes the same view from being in government and from ruling over people in any democracy.
	The recent IMC reportthe eighth reportwas clear, despite the efforts of some to spin it for their own purposes, about the extent of ongoing criminality and of ongoing intelligence gathering about subversive activity by the Provisional IRA. The Provisional IRA was not alone, because there were references to loyalist organisations and dissidents. We do not wish to gloss over that or set it to one side. We accept that such activity also has to end, butas has already been made clearwe are talking about the Provisional IRA because Sinn Fein has the political numbers and the votes to enable it to aspire to government. That is why we are concentrating today and in other debates on the role of the Provisional IRA.
	From the IMC report, our own sources, the Chief Constable's remarks and other information, there is no doubt that the Provisional republican movement has a long way to travel before anyone can be certain that it has moved to a permanent and irreversible position and foresworn violence and illegal activity for good. As I said in an earlier intervention, as long as it maintains an illegal terrorist organisation, that will be a strong indication to many people that it cannot yet be described as being exclusively committed to peaceful and democratic means. Why would one need an illegal terrorist organisation, even if it is silent, if one were truly and permanently committed to peaceful and democratic methods? That point has been well made, over and over again, by Michael McDowell, the Minister for Justice in the Irish Republic, and by other political parties there.
	Our party backs the changes in the Bill to the electoral registration process. The decision to move the registration deadline nearer to polling day11 working days beforeis to be welcomed. It is a positive move and brings us into line with the position in the rest of the United Kingdom. It will also encourage greater voter participation and involvement in elections. Many people in many of the communities that I represent in north Belfast turn their attention to the issue of whether they are on the electoral register only when an election is announced. By then, it is too late, and I hope that the change will help to ensure that people who want to vote and are entitled to vote can do so.
	I accept that we need safeguards, one of which is that people who register so late will not be able to apply for a postal or absentee vote. There will be other restrictions, but I make a plea that they should not be too burdensome. If they are, they would negate the change. One of the problems that we had with rolling registration and getting people on to the register after the annual canvas was completed was that some people were called to interview in the electoral office. Some of those interviews were set for the middle of the day when people were at work or had other commitments. They were unable to attend and therefore did not bother to proceed with their application to be registered outside the normal annual canvas. I hope that the Minister will accept that any safeguards should be commensurate with the objective of getting as many people on to the register as possible.
	The abolition of the annual canvas will save considerable expenditure and it will also mean less chance of people falling off the register by accident, simply through neglecting to renew their application. Provided the electoral office is given the resources to ensure, through the proper use of databases and so on, that those who should be on the register are on it and those who should not are removed, we should end up with a much more accurate register.
	On the issue of political donations, we have no objection in principle to the Bill, which will bring Northern Ireland into line with the rest of the United Kingdom. We accept entirely the concerns that have been voiced by the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), and that is one reason why the current provisions will be extended until at least 2010. I am sure that the Minister will confirm that if, come 2010, the parties in Northern Ireland are agreed that intimidation is still an issue, he will look carefully at whether to extend those provisions. That is a matter for the future.
	The hon. Gentleman was right about the concerns on this issue, but one thing strikes me as odd. In answer to a question from the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), he said that it would be paramilitaries linked to political parties in Northern Ireland who would be guilty of intimidation of donors to his party. At the same time as the hon. Gentleman makes that point strongly here today, the leader of his partyand others in his partycall for parties linked to those paramilitaries to take their place in government. Indeed, we are told that we should rush ahead and call the Assembly together in six weeks. No doubt, the hon. Gentleman's party would want us to vote into government those same parties with the paramilitary friends who would try to intimidate donors to his party. Sometimes, people need to take a reality check. I have no doubt that what the hon. Gentleman said was right. As the Chairman of the Select Committee said, he is an honourable man, but how can we admit those parties into government? Surely we need to be certain that all the criminal and illegal activity is finished for good.

Nigel Dodds: The hon. Gentleman has repeated that line so often that he is beginning to believe it. If he reads the comprehensive agreement, he will find that we made sure, through the provisions that we enunciated and the safeguards that we introduced, that the criminality and paramilitarism had to be over for good. However, his party was prepared to vote terrorists into government at a time when no decommissioning was taking place and criminality was ongoing. That was not even mentioned by his party. He voted for that, so it does not behove him to lecture the DUP on such matters.
	We have concerns about political donations that are permissible under Irish law. That opens up the possibility that what is permissible and legal is defined not by debate, discussion and vote in this House and in the other place but by what is decided in Dail Eireann. Laws could be made that apply to parties in Northern Ireland over which we would have no control. The clause that allows that needs careful consideration in Committee. It is far too wide ranging; it opens up possibilities whereby we are handing over power in this matter to another jurisdiction without any real safeguards at all and without any opportunity to curtail it or to revisit the issue, even within the Bill. That needs to be looked at.
	Finally, I allude to the point I raised when the Secretary of State opened this debate: the exemption for foreign donors when they are Irish or Irish corporations. The Secretary of State indicated that it is not just Sinn Fein that will benefit and which had made representations. He said that there were others, but he did not elaborate on that. It would be useful to know who else he was referring to in that regard

Alasdair McDonnell: I wish to confine myself to the miscellaneous aspects of the miscellaneous provisions in the Bill. The slightly more main aspects have been discussed at length. Before I get into the detail of what I want to say, I wish to emphasise to my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) that the SDLP has been consistent since Leeds castle and before about the criminal activity of paramilitary organisations; as they moved away from more lethal operations they were diverting their energies into crime and associated matters. The SDLP has no need to apologise to anyone for that.
	I shall take a brief look at the all-Ireland energy provisions, the renewable energy provisions and electoral registrations and I may say a word about political funding. I welcome the parts of the Bill that refer to the all-Ireland energy market and congratulate the Secretary of State on the move towards the creation of a single electricity market for the island of Ireland. That is something that the SDLP has long campaigned for. The Bill acknowledges our argument that we cannot operate efficiently with two small energy markets on a small island. The creation of an all-Ireland electricity market creates better value energy and power through economies of scale and provides security and diversity of supply, making the island of Ireland, north and south, a better place to do business. I compliment the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) who, during his contribution earlier, raised the issue of wider connectivity within the British Isles and to Europe. In modern energy markets we need a minimum market of 10 million to 12 million people and the all-Ireland market needs to be better opened up to Wales and Scotland.
	The energy sector in Northern Ireland faces many challenges. We are far too heavily dependent on fossil fuels, and we need to do much more to encourage the development of diversity and more sustainable energy supply. We need to tackle our global warming commitments more sincerely and genuinely through the reduction of carbon emissions. For many years we have been lumberedindeed, if I dare use the term, murderedby badly negotiated contracts for electricity generation. We pay an overcharge of 40 or 50 per cent on the normal market rates. We have that millstone around our necks until 2010, 2012 or 2014 when various guarantees to suppliers come to an end. In recent months, gas and electricity costs have increased substantially throughout these islands, but these price increases are particularly severe in Northern Ireland because they come alongside a draconian 19 per cent. rise in the regional rate and the prospect of water charges. They threaten poverty. Far from poverty, being reduced, particularly fuel poverty, we are now faced with an increase, and increased fuel poverty in particular.
	While the development in energy markets is welcome, obstacles of many other kinds continue to impede useful, pragmatic and practical north-south co-operation and partnerships, commonsense partnerships that should carry no political burden or baggage whatsoever. It is my understanding that they are as useful and beneficial to those who see themselves as Unionists as to those who see themselves as nationalists. These partnerships are necessary across a wide range of matters. Some of them are minor, others substantial. They include double-chargingparticularly roaming telephone charges where people are charged an arm and a leg to make mobile telephone calls over a distance of a mile or twoand taxation anomalies arising from being resident in one jurisdiction and working in another which create further difficulties. All these matters need to be tackled with a commitment to resolving the problems and removing barriers so that people, goods and services can move throughout the island for the benefit of all.
	That is why the SDLP has published detailed proposals, including plans on transport and infrastructure, suggestions of an all-Ireland research alliance, marketing and investment co-operation and a public safety body. We could perhaps go as far as a joined-up anti-poverty strategy across the island. I could go into other issues, but it would unfair of me to drag on now. I have made the point.
	In Northern Ireland, we have some of the best renewable energy resources in Europe, yet, according to the Carbon Trust, only 0.2 per cent. of the north's primary energy requirement comes from renewable sources. That is a scandal. The threat of global climate change ensures that we must quickly change the way that we source and use energy. Financial assistance is required. There is some around, but it is not massive and we need to extend it further. There is a desperate need to develop, initiate and innovate around the renewable energy sector on a major scale to ensure that we are not as dependent on fossil fuels and the traditional electricity-based fuels of the past. That would allow Northern Ireland to meet its global commitment by increasing the energy available from renewable sources, reduce carbon emissions, improve air quality and ultimately improve health. While I am pleased to see the commitment to renewable energy, legislation should be in place by now for a sustainable development strategy for Northern Ireland. Such a strategy would have broader implications to ensure that all areas of Government policy would meet the needs of today's society while protecting resources for future generations.
	The SDLP welcomes the decision to review arrangements for electoral registration and elections in Northern Ireland. In the past, electoral fraud has been widespread and in some areas it has skewed or affected election results. Proper regulation of the electoral process is crucial to ensure that as many as possible of those eligible to vote are registered, that elections are fair and that the democratic will of the people is reflected as accurately as possible. More than 91 per cent. of those eligible should be registered; I should like the figure to be 97, 98, 99 or even 100 per cent.
	In the past, my party has campaigned vigorously for measures to combat electoral fraud and we welcomed the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Act 2002. We argued that any measure to target fraud must be carefully monitored to ensure that the citizen's right to vote and the need to guard against fraud were upheld. The three elections since the introduction of the Act were cleaner and fairer than those held previously. The requirement for individual registration, with personal identifiers, has significantly tightened the electoral register and closed down the fraud that had been ongoing over many elections.
	We welcome the high level of public support for measures to combat electoral fraud. According to recent research, 72 per cent. of people endorsed the changes. However, the SDLP believes that although the proposal to allow some individuals to be registered anonymously because of concerns for their safety is sensible, it should be monitored closely. The Order in Council that will define criteria for qualification for anonymous registration needs to be strict to ensure that it is not open to abuse. The criteria must be robustly applied, so that the process protects only those who are genuinely vulnerable.
	Although public support for clearer, cleaner and fairer electoral registration is high, the requirement for people to register annually has led to a decrease in the number of people registering; as I said earlier, research indicates that only 91 per cent. of eligible people make it on to the register. Although we believe that individual registration should continue on the current basis, using identifiers, as the strongest safeguard against fraud, annual registration is not required and we support its relaxation.
	The carry forward of people already on the 2004 register was extremely useful, and allowed many people to vote in elections in 2005 who would otherwise have been denied a vote. It was a sensible move that encouraged significantly higher electoral participation.
	Withdrawing the annual canvass should enable the electoral office to focus better on groups that tend not to register, especially people living in disadvantaged areas and young people, as well as people who have difficulty in completing formsof whom there are many more than we realise. That is where resources are needed and can best be put to good use to ensure maximum participation. In the context of the abolition of the annual canvass, the necessary resources must be delivered and allocated to registration.
	I am a little worried by the suggestion that a blanket canvass be carried out every 10 years. It should be held every three or four years, or there should be a rotational canvass that covered different areas every year. I am worried that relaxing the requirement would mean a reduction in district or regional electoral offices.
	I welcome the proposal for greater data sharing between the chief electoral office and other Departments and public sector bodies. That enhanced sharing of information will ensure greater accuracy and will help in identifying correct addresses and responding quickly. I welcome the proposal for easier registration before an election, but I am concerned that 11 days before polling would not give the electoral office enough time to verify applications properly and could lead to a degree of fraud. A slightly longer periodperhaps 18 daysmight be more realistic and responsible, to ensure that only those people genuinely entitled to a vote received one.
	I want to address political funding, about which my hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) put some well-made points. There is no suggestion that there is a grand orchestrated plan for intimidation. For example, a donation may be demanded of a decent honest person in the public eyeof whom there are many in my constituencysuch as a publican, the owner of a small building firm or a small business man or woman; they are not subject to direct intimidation, but a parallel donation can sometimes be demanded for a paramilitary organisation, with the suggestion that it be treated as a business investment. However, if they do not make the donation, their building site or bar can be wrecked or the business can be interfered with or undermined in some way.
	My colleagues and I are making a genuine plea for sensitivity about that issue. Our party is the most vulnerable. We have fought and stood our ground for 30 years for sanity, democracy, peace and progress in Northern Ireland. We are extremely vulnerable. We do not want those who stand alongside us in support of democracy to be subjected to threats. We have no objection to lists if they are treated as confidential, but their publication is extremely dangerous and exposes people.
	The Chairman of the Select Committee is fully aware of the implications of the investigation that the Committee is undertaking at present. It is not a great leap from the organised crime that we are talking about in the Select Committee to organised pressure and threat in respect of elections.
	I thank the House for the opportunity to speak and urge Members to take the electoral and fund-raising provisions seriously. I should like an undertaking that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North said, we reconsider the provisions in 2007 or 2010 to ensure that people who want to support democracy and donate to a democratic party are allowed to do so without fear of intimidation.

Ben Wallace: I understand why the Government have introduced the Bill and I understand their justification that we must maintain the momentum of the peace process so that there is lasting peace, but we must be careful that the momentum does not become a rush. Far too often recently, the Government have used maintaining that momentum as an excuse to overlook some of the failures of parties such as Sinn Fein in the peace process. The Government could implement some of the measures in the Bill quickly, but that may not ensure that justice is done and that the process is thorough. I urge the Minister to take that on board. Momentum is one thing, rush is another.
	One of the main issues that has been raised throughout the debate is the devolving of policing and justice, which is important. The background is that following the Patten report, certain elements in Northern Ireland were keen to get their hands on parts of the policing service. We should not kid ourselves: the jewel in the crown for Sinn Fein has always been to try to get hold of elements of special branch and the informer network, which decimated the party and helped to force it to the negotiating table. Sinn Fein constantly pushes for that, but it is extremely important that we protect the men and women who gave information that led to the conviction of many men and women who had committed mass murder.
	The Government's solution, and their stated aim, is to remove those elements from the policing service and include them in the security services. One of their justifications for the proposal to remove those people from under the umbrella of the PSNI is that it would reflect uniformity across the United Kingdom. That is not technically correct. Obviously, SO12 in the Metropolitan police is involved in informer and agent handling. The security services have primacy, but they do not necessarily carry out operational actions.
	The uniformity argument is also undermined by the fact that on the mainland the two organisations report to two Ministers in the same Government. We could end up with the security services reporting to a UK Minister and the Police Service of Northern Ireland reporting to a justice Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly, with conflict between the two lines of responsibility. I am sure that whoever the justice Minister was, they would like to be informed of security service operations, especially when they entered the realm of police executive action. Therein lies a problem: when would members of the security service want to tell the justice Minister about an operation that involved somebody of their own political persuasion; for example, Sinn Fein?
	I urge the Minister to work out the details. One option is, as in the Patten report, to keep the security services in the PSNI, but have them reporting to the Secretary of State. Another option is to consider special provision to allow the security services to have some form of executive power in Northern Ireland. Those are just off-the-cuff suggestions, but these are important details. The strength of the RUC and PSNI special branch was the fact that cases went from intelligence to evidence to conviction in the same organisation. That is one reason those cases were successful.

David Hanson: For the benefit of the hon. Gentleman and the rest of the House I refer him to the discussion paper that we published on devolving policing and criminal justice in Northern Ireland. It sets out a range of issues about some of the questions that he is raising. We want debate; we want discussion; we want continued engagement on how to proceed in the event of the triple lock of the Assembly, the Government and this House supporting such devolution.

Ben Wallace: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply, but some of the answers given by the Secretary of State, such as the uniformity argument, could be defeated in debate. We are often in danger of creating two-tier terrorism: there is international terrorism and there is little, local Irish terrorism, with the IRA as a bunch of boyos who throw a few petrol bombs and are very different from al-Qaeda or the Islamic community. The IRA raised funds and entered into arrangements with Mr. Gaddafi. He is now Mr. Blair's friend, but certainly when I was in Northern Ireland he was helping to supply the IRA with weapons. The IRA has international reachit trained with the Palestine Liberation Organisation and even managed a bird-watching tour to Colombia only a couple of years agoand it is more sophisticated than some other terrorists.
	The idea that we can treat one group of terrorists differently from another is wrong. The Liberal Democrat Front-Bench spokesman was very clear on that. Many of us, including the party of government, have always accepted that a crime is a crime is a crime. It is not a little local difficulty with a terrorist or a prisoner of war; it is a crime. My worry is that in having this fudge, in an attempt to sustain momentum, we set a precedent by creating two tiers of terrorists.
	It is very clear that members of the SDLP, for example, are democrats. They have always fought in the hardest environments to uphold the democratic principle. There has been no fudging. Sinn Fein has, on the one hand, entered into democracy and, on the other, spied at Stormont. It will not take ownership of, participate in or even recognise the Northern Ireland Policing Board. That is the crux of the matter: Sinn Fein has, like any other democrat in Northern Ireland, to recognise its duty to policing. We saw Sinn Fein-IRA's idea of justice following the murder in the Short Strand, when in a statement with regard to the murderers it said, We'll kill them if you want. That is not my type of justice. We should ask them whether they are going to take ownership of this process, which means playing a proper role in the Policing Board.
	Not so long ago I attended a dinner with a number of serving police officers and licensed released terroristsI think that that is probably the right termincluding one loyalist and one republican terrorist. The opinions that they expressed are not rare, but I was shocked. I asked one whether he thought that he had done anything wrong in murdering someone and his answer was No. I asked the other what he felt, and he said, Well, I have learnt so far in the peace process that violence should not be the first option, only the last. That was a man who was released on licence. We have to understand that that attitude, that violence is always there and always an option, still prevails.
	When Sinn Fein takes ownership of policing and says, No more, and perhaps disbands the IRA, that option will be ruled out, certainly for a long period. I would hope that it would be ruled out for ever, but if one studies Irish history one knows that ceasefires have come and gone, and we had the border campaign before that. That may be why some of us are sometimes cynical about this process, although we wish it well.
	The Bill also deals with donations. Again we have a two-tier element, in that one party in the process is treated slightly differently from another. It is interesting that, under Irish lawa 1997 Act amended in 2001an Irish citizen, even one living in the United States, can donate money to Sinn Fein. In the five years from 1997 to 2002, Friends of Sinn Fein USA donated $1 million to Sinn Fein's coffers. That can happen under Irish law because one has only to be an Irish citizen, an Irish corporate body or an extension of a political party based in Ireland. Friends of Sinn Fein, therefore, is allowed to donate, and under new regulations in Ireland it will not have to declare its donation unless it is part of a political campaign. If it is funding Sinn Fein activities other than those in elections, it does not have to be declared.
	If we want a fair democratic process, in both the south and the north of Ireland, we cannot have different rules for different groups of people. I am sure that there are well intentioned Irish citizens in the south who donate to the Unionist cause; I do not know how many. There was certainly an attempt to march in Dublin recently. The situation seems to favour one group or party, and that unfairness leads to a feeling of injustice that we are all trying to rule out.
	It is rather ironic, perhaps, that currently the biggest single donor to Sinn Fein-IRA is Her Majesty's Government, with the fudge on Short money that we saw not so long ago and allowances being given by this House to a party that does not sit in this House. That is perverse. The hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. Anderson) referred to the ANC under apartheid in South Africa. I am afraid that the South Africans would think us barking mad for giving so much funding to one particular party at this moment.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) and I sat on a Statutory Instrument Committee only six weeks ago discussing the extension of the amnesty for decommissioning. We debated the issue with the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Woodward). Rather discourteously, at no stage did he say that, never mind us all having to agree to an amnesty for one more year, this Bill, which I am sure had already been drafted or was in the process of being drafted, would sneak under the wire the extension of the amnesty to 2010.
	The Secretary of State referred to the ninth report of the International Monitoring Commission. It says that all in the garden is rosy, but it comes with a health warning that that could change at any moment. If it is all going so well, why do we need a three-year extension? [Interruption.] The Minister of State says from a sedentary position that it is for loyalists. I am sorry, but the loyalists should have the same chance as everyone else. They should be told, There's your amnesty. There's your chance. Most people have tried to decommission. How many years do they want? Loyalist or nationalist, they should get their chance, and that is it. The fact that we are returning yet again with another concession and another allowance for people who are murders and terrorists just says one thing to me: in the guts of it, what we are seeing is yet again another exception.
	Anyone who has spent time in Northern Ireland knowspeople need not be born and bred Ulstermen to knowthat such injustices reflect in history and build up a head a steam. All that I am trying to achieve in the debate and in my opposition sometimes to the process that we currently face is to show that, if we are not truthful with the people of Northern Ireland and if we are not clear that everyone gets the same rights, we will end up going back all the way to square one. That would be a tragedy.
	I find it rather ironic that the policing of firearms and explosives may be handed to a future Minister of Justice, especially as some of the people involved are probably experts, as some hon. Members have said, and certainly may have been sponsored by the makers of Semtex in their time. I hope that we think again twice. The Minister has said that there is a triple lock. First, the Assembly must agree; Ministers must agree; and, indeed, I believe that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister must agree. All those things are possible, and we must be careful not to oil the lock so much that it slips open with the most gentle pushing.
	Too many locks make things more complicated. Why do we not just have a simple lock? Unless people renounce terrorism and violence and disband their terrorist organisations, they should not get to play the game. That is not difficult; three locks or a combination lock are not needed. Why do not we make things more simple and fair to everyone? In Committee and throughout the Bill's proceedings in the House, I shall do my best to ensure that everyone is treated the same in the Bill.
	I hope that the Minister will assure us in summing up the debate about those individuals who may transfer from their current policing roles as a result of the changes and say what will happen to their terms and conditions and their status or protection. I hope that we are all treated the same, whether we are members of the United Kingdom or Irish or, indeed, members of Ulster or Northern Ireland. The Bill must uphold that in every aspect of its miscellaneous provisions, of which I agree that there are many.
	I agree with the SDLP Members, especially the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) in his opening remarks, about anonymity for donations. The reality is that people are intimidated and threatened and their political activities are curtailed. I should like to think that that was not so, but I want the SDLP, not Sinn Fein-IRA, to represent the nationalist cause. That is why I go along with the protections for donors or anyone else in the current regime. We should not forget that the parties must still present their election expenses and their donationsthey are just kept confidentialand it is important that any extension may happen in three years time. I will go along with the SDLP's cries for protection because we must live in the real world.
	Finally, it is important the Bill should affect everyone in the same way and it should not contain peculiar exemptions that will lead to an increase, not a decrease, in injustice.

Peter Robinson: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Wallace), whose experience in Northern Ireland has brought a valuable insight to the House. On his last remark, it is not even just an issue of the intimidation of those who might be donors to political parties in Northern Irelandthe reality is that Northern Ireland is a very divided society, and as soon as anyone is identified as a supporter of one party or another, that person will automatically lose a large section of their clientele. That is off-putting and it will harm the political parties and democracy in Northern Ireland if people are not encouraged to continue to give to the political parties there.
	I can confirm that my party gets moneyperhaps not as significant as the SDLPfrom people in the Republic of Ireland, but we still believe that all donations should be governed by one piece of legislation. We should not have another jurisdiction dictating the manner in which there will be an announcement or publication of the names of those who have donated to political parties in Northern Ireland. It is vital that that issue is dealt with in Committee.
	A number of hon. Membersindeed, probably all who have spokenhave referred during their remarks to the wide-ranging nature of the provisions in the Bill. It has been described in many ways. It was first a dog's dinner. The dog was then in a manger. I am not quite sure where the dog will end up by the end of the debate. The Bill's provisions clearly range from Dan to Beersheba, but the central issue is policing and justice. That was clearly the most prominent issue that the Government had to deal with, and I should describe why they had to do so. It is also very clear that there is no practical requirement for legislation on policing and justice powers to come before the House at this stage.
	I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. Anderson), who spoke passionately in describing devolution. I found myself nodding in agreement with him as he went through the attributes of devolution. I am a devolutionist. I believe in devolution for Northern Ireland in the right circumstances and at the right timeif it is of the right kind. He spoke of his desire to see devolution in his area. We agree with him on all those matters, but he somehow made a leap that the Bill was in some way necessary to make that stride forward. Of course, it is not.
	The Government are putting the cart before the horse with the Bill because policing and justice will notcannotbe devolved to Northern Ireland under existing United Kingdom legislation. That cannot happen. The existing legislation under the Belfast agreement will not enjoy the support of the majority of the Unionist community. Cross-community support is required for any form of devolution to take place. Therefore, there will be no devolution.
	The Government know that they must change the form of devolution to get an Assembly up and running, yet instead of doing what is required first, they have decided to leapfrog that and deal with the policing and justice issue. Why should they do that? What is the imperative that requires the Government to introduce legislation to provide an enabling power on policing and justice to an Assembly that is not sitting and for which the legislation that will allow it to sit is still not in place? The answer is clearthey have been colloguing with Sinn Fein-IRA.
	Sinn Fein-IRA required changes in policing and justice matters to give them a cloak for various statements in the past. That is the basis of the legislation, but it will not be required for years to come. Does any hon. Member really believe that, if the Assembly were up and running, anyone would seriously allow policing and justice powers to be devolved to Northern Ireland?
	The Minister talked of a triple lock. I suspect that none of those locks will be opened if policing and justice powers are devolved to Northern Ireland. The Government certainly would not consider that the time is appropriate to hand over the responsibility for policing and justice to the Northern Ireland Assembly, particularly if it included those who are still involved in criminality, according to the Government's own watchdog on the matter. The Northern Ireland parties in the Assembly would not vote on a cross-community basis for that to take place; nor would the community in Northern Ireland allow it to happen. Therefore, the three locks that the Government say are in placeI will come back to that issue in a momentwould not be unlocked by the Bill.
	We are talking about what could happen years down the road. Even if the Assembly wanted policing and justice powers to be devolved years down the road, I am told quite reliably, by the Minister's officials, that it would probably take about two years before they could devolve them. The practical requirements after the Assembly took the decision would take several years to work through the systemenough time, I should have thought, for even the hard-pressed business managers of this place to find time to have this legislation passed. There is no need to deal with the Bill tonight; there is no practical purpose. It is being done for a political purposea purpose that is between the Government and Sinn Fein-IRA.
	I said that I would return to the triple lock. It has changedit is no longer the triple lock that was in the Government's proposals for a comprehensive agreement. I have spoken to the Minister privately about the matter, but I think that it is necessary to put it on the public record. When I met him privately, I accused the Minister of being involved in some mischief, and he assured me that he was not. He assured me that the Government would look at the matter and that it was not their intention to depart in that respect from the proposals for a comprehensive agreement. However, the comprehensive agreement proposals specifically contained another lock, which is not in the Bill.
	The proposed comprehensive agreement required any proposal for policing and justice powers to be devolved in Northern Ireland to be made jointly by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. Why is that such an important proposal? It is because even though the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) rightly recognises the advance in the Bill allowing, in effect, a veto for Unionists under the arrangements, regrettably, a cross-community vote in the Assembly does not require a majority of Unionists to be in favour, because one of the triggers for cross-community voting requires only 40 per cent. of Unionists. I do not question the bona fides of the Ulster Unionist party, but the UUP and the Progressive Unionist party could provide that 40 per cent., so without the consent of the majority of the Unionist community as represented in that Assembly, legislation could be enacted to have policing and justice powers devolved in Northern Ireland. Two of the crucial locks are absent. Cross-community support in the community itself, which is one of the requirements of the proposals for a comprehensive agreement, would not be provided, and the requirement in the comprehensive agreement for the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to act jointly has been removed. Clearly, such a proposal would not have the support of the largest party in Northern Ireland.
	It is vital that that issue is re-examined. The Minister said that there was no mischief intended by the Government, but I think that if it was not intended by the Government, there is someone lurking in the draftsmen's department who intends mischief. The draftsmen are extremely careful when looking at the language of agreements and translating those agreements into legislation. I suspect that it would have been impossible to translate the comprehensive agreement proposals into legislation and simply forget the requirement that the proposal come from the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. I hope that, when he winds up the debate, the Minister will respond to that issue, which many of us consider to be vital.
	The main point is that in the foreseeable future the circumstances will not exist for policing and justice powers to be exercised in Northern Ireland. Let me make it clear: my party is a devolutionist party. It believes in the widest powers possible being devolved, including policing and justice powers. It wants that to be done with the right modality, at the right time and in the right circumstances, and that can only be when the community has confidence that those powers will be properly exercised. The community could never be satisfied that those powers would be exercised properly when those who would be exercising them are involved in paramilitary and criminal activity.
	The reality that we have to face up to is that there is a party in Northern Ireland that is still entrenched in violence and criminality. The report of the Independent Monitoring Commissionthe Government's own appointed bodyindicated that that party is still involved in paramilitary activity, intelligence gathering and criminality at the very highest leadership level and at an organisational level.
	I congratulate the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the Garda Siochana on a recent joint effort. Operating on both sides of the border in the sort of security co-operation that we support and encourage, they descended upon a certain individual. I had asked the Assets Recovery Agency when it was going to act against the man, and I have raised his portfolio in the House on several occasions, so I was glad to see the police on both sides of the border take action. The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Adams), who never presents himself in the House, says that the man in question is just an ordinary decent farmer who is being punished because he is a republican, but I looked at the list of items removed from that farmer's farmyard. He had 200,000 in sterling and euro notes and thousands more in cheques. He had 30,000 cigaretteshe is obviously a heavy smoker. He had 8,000 litres of laundered fuel, although I am not sure in what vehicles he was using it. He also had two firearmsI am quoting what was reported in the newspapers, so the information does not come under the sub judice rules. There were also six oil tankers and a number of laptop computers, which are now being examined by the police. Let me ask hon. Members a questionwhere do people put their laptop computers? The answer is under bales of hay. Hands up everyone who stores their laptop computer under a bale of hay. I do not suggest that there is anything alarming about the fact that that man's laptop computers were found under a bale of hay, but it must make discovering their contents more worthwhile.
	That is a man who, according to the leader of Sinn Fein-IRA, is an ordinary decent farmer. None of the ordinary decent farmers that I know keeps that amount of cash on their farm, or would even have that amount of cash to keep. Nor do they have that many cigarettes, that amount of laundered fuel or that number of vehiclesand they certainly do not keep their laptop computers, if they have any, under bales of hay. However, I congratulate the Garda Siochana and the PSNI and I trust that the casetogether with several related cases that the ARA and the Criminal Assets Bureau in the Irish Republic are handlingwill eventually come through to the courts. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I see you sitting somewhat nervously, waiting to pounce if I go too far, so I shall say no more on that subject.
	A number of speakers in the debate said that elements of the comprehensive agreement need to be changed. I speak principally of the leader of the SDLP, the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), who becomes very exercised if anyone suggests one letter, never mind one word, and certainly not one phrase, sentence or paragraph, of the Belfast agreement. I understand that he has some emotional capital tied up in that agreement. He believes that it is a wonderful document and that, like the law of the Medes and the Persians, it should never be changed. However, the reality is that it failed.
	The hon. Gentleman has not come to terms with thathe is still in denial. He does not realise that the core of the agreement that he negotiated had cross-community support as a key requirement. Without cross-community support, his deal cannot work, and the people of Northern Ireland have moved onhe has not, but they have. They have shown that repeatedly at the ballot box, which is where we encourage people to show their feelings on such issues. They have said that they do not support his agreement, and one of the key reasons for that is to do with accountability. Although the proposals for a comprehensive agreement have not been endorsed by my party, many of them flow from proposals that were made by my party and many others were not the choicecertainly not the first choiceof members of my party.
	The hon. Gentleman has identified an issue that was not my party's first choicethe way in which the First and the Deputy First Ministers would be elected or appointed. I do not have any misgivings about the issue, although I find it difficult to understand why he is so tender about the election of the First and the Deputy First Ministers. One never talks about rope in the house of the hanged man, and he would be better served if he did not raise the issue of elections, given his party's background.
	I recall the occasion on which Mo Mowlam, the late Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, came to the Dispatch Box and announced to the House, almost in tears, that the then Member for Newry and Armagh and Deputy First Minister, Seamus Mallon, had resigned. She said that that was dreadful and that he was a good man, and she spoke eloquently about his attributes. At home, the Deputy First Minister's car was taken away, his salary was stopped, and his staff and even his mobile phone were taken away. All the emoluments of office were taken away, but people realised that no one else would be elected to his position because they did not have the necessary cross-community support. They therefore said that he did not resign, even though his resignation was announced in the House, his pay stopped, and he was thrown out of his offices and so on. They decided to overturn everything and make him un-resign. If I were the hon. Member for Foyle, I would not have raised the way in which the First and the Deputy First Ministers are elected, as I would not be on strong ground.

Peter Robinson: The hon. Gentleman may wish to wait a moment before he intervenes, as he may have more to say.
	The Secretary of State cannot give the hon. Gentleman an undertaking. I heard an undertaking that the Secretary of State will not implement the piece of the comprehensive agreement whereby effectively the two largest partiesthe Democratic Unionist party and Sinn Feincan determine whether Ministers in fact achieve ministerial office. However, the Secretary of State cannot give such an assurance because of the legislation that was encouraged and supported by the hon. Member for Foyle. The Belfast agreement ensures that there will not be any Ministers in Northern Ireland unless those two parties are satisfied, because they must propose the First and Deputy First Ministers. If they do not do so, for whatever reason, the rest of the process does not take place. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman, therefore, that there is a requirement for change.
	The Belfast agreement structure is based on a mandatory requirement for Ministers to be appointed according to their strength, which runs contrary to the voluntary nature of the appointment of the First and Deputy First Ministers. If it is a mandatory system for all the other offices and every other Minister in every other Department; if it is mandatory for the Committee Chairmen and Deputy Chairmen; if it is mandatory for Committee membership and almost everything that the Assembly does, why is it suddenly turned on its head for the appointment of the First and Deputy First Ministers? If it is a mandatory system it should be mandatory throughout. If it is a voluntary systemand I would encourage such a systemit should be voluntary throughout. Regrettably, however, the hon. Gentleman would deny us the opportunity to have a voluntary coalition. Government could be up and running tomorrow if he were willing to move in that direction.

Peter Robinson: Let me make the position clear. When members of my party decided to take up seats in the Executive and operate in silos, as they were entitled to do under the legislation, the hon. Gentleman's party said that we should not be allowed to behave as rogue Ministerseffectively, Ministers in opposition. We proved that we could do so. If we want to make genuine progress in Northern Ireland, we need joined-up government and collective responsibility. To achieve that there must be a level of trust that does not exist at present. The fact that it does not exist is a reality, and the hon. Gentleman knows that the trust necessary to run the Government in Northern Ireland is not there.
	I cannot understand why the hon. Gentleman refuses to accept the reality and, together with us, tell the Government to consider a lower level of devolution. We should achieve the highest level possible under prevailing circumstances so that important decisions can be taken in Northern Ireland, progress can be made and trust built. I should have thought that that was in the interests of the whole community in Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman's approach is one of all or nothingI think I offended him at the weekend by referring to it as the SDLP's scorched-earth policyin which Executive devolution must up and running, with Sinn Fein in harness, otherwise there will be nothing in return. The reality for the people of Northern Ireland, however, is that no one is pressing my party to go into government with people who are still involved in criminality, as the IMC has indicated is the case with Sinn Fein.
	Leaving aside the general tenor of issues relating to policing and justice, some Members have told the Minister of State that it is essential that he deals with the issue of the triple lock in the comprehensive agreement. My party does not intend to divide the House this evening, although there are issues that we want to examine in Committee. If they are not dealt with satisfactorily, we have the option of voting against the Bill on Third Reading. It would be unfortunate, given that this is an important piece of legislation, if the Minister could not carry the main parties with him.
	I will touch on some of the issues relating to other provisions in the Bill. First, there is the power that the Secretary of State has given himself to bring forward the date of the next Assembly election. I have some experience in that area because I ended up taking a previous Secretary of State to court over the issue. The case went right through to the House of Lords, where, on the narrowest vote possibleby three to twoa decision was made in the Secretary of State's favour. On reflection, I am probably glad that that was the result and the Secretary of State is probably unhappy that it was, although at the time we both felt very differently about it. The reality is that if the election had been held at that point, we would not have reached the level that we were then at and the outcome might have been different. However, that is all academic because our level of support has increased even from the last election, so the Secretary of State will not get the opportunity to play that one again.
	Indeed, it is probably because our level of support has increased since the last election that it is unlikely that the Secretary of State will ever use the provision that he has given himself in the Bill to call an early election. However, if he wants to, my party will be more than happy to get on to the hustings and show that the community still supports our position. It is right that he has the provision. I can envisage circumstances in which it might be better to have an election now and then move on to whatever might be agreed over the months after it has taken place.
	The provision is useful but, by and large, the problem with this Government has not been to do with calling elections early, but with putting elections off. On every previous occasion, the Government have come to the House, or taken the power themselves, to call off elections so that the people do not have the opportunity to express their views democratically. For a Minister to come to the House and say, We want to take the power to give the people of Northern Ireland the opportunity to speak is something that I would encourage. I hope that, at some stage, he uses it.
	I also want to touch on the extension of the decommissioning period in the Bill. I do not think that there has been too much discussion about it, but the realities are as follows. The Loyalist Volunteer Force started the process by decommissioning a very small number of fairly old and not very usable weapons. That was followed by a gesture. Nobody knows the extent of that gesture accurately, although I do know that, after three such gestures by the IRA, one well-known officialwho I will not name because I do not like naming officials in the Houseindicated that they would be embarrassed to have published the amount of weaponry that had been decommissioned in those three tranches. Indeed, the process that was then under way, whereby the IRA was allowed to have its representatives in Government even while it still held on to its weapons, allowed it to use its weapons to buy concessions.
	When my party became the largest party in Northern Ireland and spoke on behalf of the Unionist community, one of the first things that it said was, We can't allow the IRA to continue to have that control. The situation has to be reversed so that it does not get into government until it gives up its weaponry. The substantial amount of weaponry that was decommissioned came about because people were prepared to dig in their heels and say, To get into this club, you have to pay your membership. You don't become a member and then consider how much you're going to pay.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) was pilloried by some on the day when that great decommissioning act took place because he had some misgivings about whether the totality of weapons had been decommissioned. The Independent International Commission on Decommissioning, led by General John de Chastelain, was unequivocal and said that all the weapons had been decommissioned. The IRA said the same and the Government immediately said the same, too. However, it later transpired that intelligence was available on the matter. The Independent Monitoring Commission reported in its eighth report that it had intelligence that indicated that a significant number and variety of weaponsnot just handgunswere still in the possession of the Provisional IRA.
	The IICD was rushed out to respond and take away the sting from that remark. It said, Oh well, yes, we have seen that intelligence and as a result of that we have started to investigate. It made the mistake of telling us how it investigated the matter. First, it went to the Garda Siochana, who said, In our jurisdiction, we have no evidence of that. Obviously, because the Police Service of Northern Ireland and MI5 were providing the intelligence, it was clear that it was coming not from the Garda Siochana's jurisdiction, but from the United Kingdom's jurisdiction. Having received that reply from the Garda Siochana, a further call was made by the IICD. It went to the IRA andsurprise, surpriseguess what the IRA had to say? It said that it had handed over all its weapons and was shocked and irate that anybody would suggest otherwise.
	Is it not amazing that the whole basis on which the IICD was able to tell hon. Members and the world at large that all the weapons had been handed over and destroyed was intelligence from the Police Service of Northern Ireland and MI5? They supplied the IICD with the statistics of the weaponry that they believed that the IRA had, which was based on the information that they got from Colonel Gaddafi, when he became our great friend, and informers within the organisation. They believed that they could give an accurate account of the IRA's weaponry in every category. The IICD was prepared to accept that their intelligence was sound, that they were the people to listen to and that, on the basis of what they had provided, all decommissioning had taken place. However, when those self-same people came back and said, Hold on a minute; they've still got guns, the IICD did not want to believe them.
	Anyone in Northern Ireland who thinks about that for a moment will realise that it is more than likely that the IRA still has weapons. Most people will think that no one should ever have said with the clarity and certainty of the Government and the IICD that all the weapons had been decommissioned. From the very beginning, everyone in this party believed that weapons were still held out there. We have been vindicated, and it is still the responsibility of the Government and, for that matter, the IICD to pursue the remaining weapons in the IRA's arsenal.
	Of course, the IRA will not admit it, but am I not right in saying that weapons were discovered at a farmhouseI will go no further than thatin recent days? Is it not true that another search was carried out in the Irish Republic and a weapon was found? Where are those weapons coming from if all the weapons of the Provisional IRA have been decommissioned? It is vital that we continue to press for the full decommissioning of all paramilitary organisations in Northern Ireland.
	I have dealt extensively with the republican movement, so let me touch on the loyalist paramilitaries. This party believes that every illegal gun should be destroyed, whether it is held by a loyalist paramilitary organisation or a republican paramilitary organisation. No one in this party will put forward any excuses for any loyalist paramilitary organisation. We believe that they should all decommission. They should all end their paramilitary and criminal activities.
	I will bring my speech to a conclusion because several of my colleagues and the hon. Member for North Down wish to speak. I urge the Minister to ensure that we have proper time to deal with all matters in Committee, whether on the Floor of the House or upstairs, especially if the Government intend to introduce, by way of amendment, important provisions to give life to an Assembly in Northern Ireland. I have misgivings about introducing important constitutional measures by way of amendment to a miscellaneous provisions Bill. It does not say too much for Northern Ireland that the way in which it is to be governed is dealt with by a miscellaneous provisions Bill. It would be more proper if separate, custom-made legislation was brought forward for such measures, rather than bringing them in by way of amendment. I urge the Minister to ensure that priority is given to the provisions for an Assembly, rather than provisions on what might happen when an Assembly is under way and running in Northern Ireland.

Lady Hermon: It is a delight to follow the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson). I found myself in considerable agreement with much of what he said. That is an unusual event, so I want to put it on record, but there will be differences that will distinguish us later on.
	The hon. Gentleman criticised the Bill for being of a miscellaneous nature, but I disagree with him on that point. Even if we have a miscellaneous Bill, it is umpteen times better that we have primary legislation for Northern Ireland instead of a wretched Order in Council. It is absolutely shameful that, during the protracted period of the suspension of the Assembly, the Government have repeatedly used Orders in Council to legislate for 1.7 million decent people who are part of the United Kingdom. It is an unusual noveltya red letter daythat we are here this evening, discussing primary legislation. It is a welcome change, although unfortunately I do not think it represents a change of policy or a change of mind by the Northern Ireland Office team. Primary legislation is necessary, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, because the Bill amends so much else of a primary nature.
	I concur with the hon. Gentleman's remarks about decommissioning. It is unfortunate that the Secretary of State skimmed over the extension in clause 23 of a period of amnesty from 2007 to 2010. I say that with great bitterness and I know I sound bitter. I am bitter and jaundiced, particularly towards loyalist paramilitaries. I say that because it was those with paramilitary connections who murdered a young constituent of mine, Lisa Dorrian, over a year ago. On 20 February 2005, she disappeared from a caravan site and she has been disappeared ever since. It is a horrible term to use, but it is accurate. Her family do not have a body to bury, they do not have a grave and they have not had a funeral.
	Those with loyalist paramilitary connections engender my wrath on account of that case and on account of many of the ghastly murders that they have carried outfor example, Jim Gray last summer, and four other grisly murders throughout the summer as a result of internal feuding. It is not internal housekeeping. It is someone's husband, son or brother. It is contemptible. I say that as criticism of the extension of the amnesty period to 2010. I hope that the Minister will have a quiet word with the Secretary of State some time after the debate and remind the Secretary of State of what he said not that long ago.
	On Wednesday 21 September 2005, the Secretary of StateI do not blame the Ministersaid:
	The choice for loyalist paramilitaries is clear: play the political role that you claim as your motive, or face the rigour of the law as the mafia organisations into which you seem to have degenerated. You will not be allowed to terrorise your own community.
	Those words were welcome across Northern Ireland. People believed that the Secretary of State meant them. If, as the Government repeatedly tell us, and as the hon. Member for Belfast, East and others have mentioned, referring to the report of de Chastelain's Independent International Commission on Decommissioning, the republican movement has completed such a significant act of decommissioningI happen to believe it has and I respect the integrity of the Rev. Harold Good, and of Andrew Sens and his colleagues on commissionif that is accurate, we are looking at the decommissioning of loyalist weaponry.
	Why in heaven's name have the Government offered an extension? In light of the Secretary of State's words about loyalists facing the rigour of the law, why are we contemplating an extension of the amnesty period to 2010? As my father would saymetaphorically speaking, of courseYou should keep their feet to the fire. The pressure should remain on loyalist paramilitaries.
	Another interesting aspect of this miscellaneous Bill that the Secretary of State did not even mention is the reference to the change in the status of the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland to bring that office into line with chief constables throughout the rest of the United Kingdom. For whatever reason, there has been an anomaly for years. For example, if a breach of health and safety legislation occurs, all chief constables, except the Chief Constable of what was the Royal Ulster Constabulary and is now the PSNI, are treated as a corporation sole. That treatment is not available to the Chief Constable, who is personally liable if a breach of health and safety legislation occurs and who must appear in court, which takes up a lot of valuable time and effort. That situation has forced the most senior police officer in the PSNI to sit for hours in court. Will the Minister explain why it has taken so long to bring the Chief Constable into line with other chief constables throughout the United Kingdom by treating them as a corporation sole?

Lady Hermon: The Minister has not explained why the anomaly existed for such a long time.
	May I place on the record my gratitude, and that of the family of Lisa Dorrian, to the recently retired assistant chief constable, Sam Kinkaid, who headed a painstaking and extensive investigation into the disappearance and murder of Lisa Dorrian and who did a great deal in difficult circumstances?
	The Bill also covers donations to political parties, which other hon. Members have mentioned. I have a particular interest in that matter, because I sit on the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission. Far be it from me to disagree with the hon. Members for South Down (Mr. McGrady), for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) and for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack), but when the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee recently visited Dublinit was our first foray overseas, which was interestingI was particularly struck by the evidence from members of the Garda and of the public, who repeatedly referred to the undermining of the confidence in Sinn Fein of the public in the Republic of Ireland following the Northern bank robbery. The theft of 26.5 million from the Northern bank in Belfast had a significant impact on the public in the Republic of Ireland, in that people suddenly realised that the democratic political process in the Republic of Ireland can be undermined when political parties obtain funding from a variety of sources.
	I do not like the private funding of political parties and believe in state funding of political parties. Various hon. Members referred to the intimidation of donors, and intimidation is a criminal offence. In Northern Ireland, there is intimidation and extortion, and windows get broken when someone is told to make a contribution by paramilitaries. When the Chief Constable of the PSNI gave evidence to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in public session, he pleaded for people to come together and report efforts by paramilitaries to use intimidation to try achieve their ends.
	I am worried about the extension of the period of quietness as regards political parties reporting to the Electoral Commission on political donations. Not only that, but it will be a criminal offence, punishable for up to six months in prison, for a serving or past member, or member of staff, of the Electoral Commission, to disclose any information about a political donation that is reported to them, right up until 2010. This Government have told everyone that they want to be open, transparent and accountable. Indeed, they introduced the Freedom of Information Act 2000. If a serving or past member of the commission gets a request for information under that Act, will it be a criminal offence for them to disclose it? [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) says that it will. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that when he winds up, if it is to be kept secret for such a long time.
	One of the wonders of the Bill is that its long title includes provision to amend the Northern Ireland Act 1998. Given that we are discussing the devolution of policing and justice, perhaps one such amendment could try to get rid of the hideous and immoral procedure of 50:50 recruitment to the police service. It was part of the agreement that I voted for in 1998 that there be equality of opportunity irrespective of political opinion or religious belief, yet the Government legislated to legalise religious discrimination in recruitment to the police, thereby standing the agreement on its head. I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members from parties across Northern Ireland will enjoy tabling amendments for discussion in Committee and on Report. The Bill deals with miscellaneous provisions, so let us use it to amend those parts of the legislation that has been passed in recent years that we loathe and detest.
	This is a red letter day not only because we are discussing primary legislation instead of a wretched Order in Council but, for me, because I am one of those who loathe and detest direct rule. That is not a reflection on those who hold the ministerial posts at the present time. The five direct rule Ministers might be nice individuals in their own right but, since every single one of them is a member of the Labour party, which does not organise or field candidates in Northern Ireland, they are completely unaccountable to the people of Northern Ireland. The sooner that direct rule is ended and devolution restored, the happier I will be. All that the Bill does is to devolve to the Assembly the decisions that it will make. When, not if, we have an Assembly again, although it certainly will not be tomorrow, it will not be next month, and it may not be next year, I should like to think that the 108 Assembly Membersof whom I am not one, as I am a rare breed indeed: one woman with one jobwill be mature enough to seize the opportunity. That requires the Unionist Members of the Legislative Assembly to decide whether devolution of policing and justice is appropriate and timely and whether, for example, members of Sinn Fein, who wish to have seats on the Executive, have ended their criminality and severed all ties with paramilitary activity. Until they do, Unionist MLAs will not agree to devolve policing and justice.
	It is therefore a red letter day for extending what can be devolved to the Assembly. I welcome that, but those in Sinn Fein and the republican movement who want policing and justice to be devolved cannot have their cake and eat it. They must join the real world with the rest of us and put all paramilitary activity and criminality behind them. Then we can face the future together. I want that to happen for the next generation, instead of constantly looking over my shoulder.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. It matters not to my constituents whether a police officer is a Protestant, a Roman Catholic or of any other religious persuasion. What matters to them is that, when they need the police, the police are there for them. That is the key to this issue. Without wishing to stray beyond the boundaries of the debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would say to the hon. Member for Foyle that reducing the number of police officers is no substitute for recruiting more police officers, regardless of their religion. I welcome the young Roman Catholics who have joined the PSNI, and I hope that they enjoy serving the whole community.
	On the question of the date for the Assembly election, I have no difficulty with the Secretary of State taking that power. However, it says a lot about where we have got to in Northern Ireland that Sinn Fein-IRA continue to exercise a veto over political progress. That is wrong. Part of the reason behind that, as the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) said earlier, is that the SDLP in particular has given Sinn Fein that veto because it will not countenance any form of devolution that falls short of full Executive power sharing that includes Sinn Fein. That is highly regrettable and plays against the SDLP's own interests.
	The reality is that there is no alternative form of devolution on offer at the moment, even though we have expressed a willingness to consider one. We made it clear in our recent proposals that we are prepared to share power with the SDLP at whatever level it chooses, right up to full Executive level. Our bottom line, however, is that we are not prepared to share power in an Executive with a party that is linked to a criminal terrorist organisation, and that position will not change. The SDLP needs to understand that. Sadly, if this involves an all-or-nothing approach, the result will have to be nothing, for the SDLP and for my party. We will have no devolution if the only devolution on offer to the people of Northern Ireland includes Sinn Fein-IRA in executive positions while the IRA continues to engage in crime and terrorism. I welcome what the hon. Member for North Down said about the UUP's position on this matter. The SDLP should reflect on where we are and look again at the proposals we have made, as we are willing to look at its proposals on devolution.
	Like the hon. Lady, I am a devolutionist, and I want the Assembly up and running and functioning properly as soon as possible so that it can address important issues such as education. I am glad that missing from the miscellaneous provisions Bill are the proposals contained in the draft Education (Northern Ireland) Order 2006. Like the hon. Lady, I would like that important matter to be dealt with by primary legislation, but I would rather not have it dealt with by the House at all in its current form, because it will fundamentally undermine our education system in Northern Ireland.
	I would like the Assembly to get to grips with the issue of education. I would like us to sit down with SDLP Members and reach a consensus on education reform, as well as dealing with other matters such as the need for investment in our infrastructure.
	I welcome the Bill's provision for loans to the Consolidated Fund of Northern Ireland. We made proposals during previous talks with the Government on the need to make more money available to the Northern Ireland Administration for infrastructure investment, which is long overdue. Indeed, there have been recent announcements by the Secretary of State and his colleagues on matters such as education and a massive investment in the infrastructure of education. I hope that he, while on the one hand improving the infrastructure of education, does not, on the other, fundamentally undermine the education system through the education reform order, which I think will do serious damage.
	I want briefly to discuss the primacy of the security services in intelligence in Northern Ireland. In an intervention, I asked the Secretary of State whether he shared my concern. In principle, I see the argument in favour of integrating Northern Ireland in the overall United Kingdom intelligence system and we recognise that the threat to this country from international terrorism is as much relevant in Northern Ireland as it is elsewhere in the UK. Indeed, there is evidence that the IRA and other terrorist groups in Northern Ireland have colluded and co-operated with other international terrorist groups, and one cannot rule out the possibility of that happening in future. Nevertheless, I have concerns.
	I believe that our security services are already stretched in dealing with the threat from international terrorism and I have not yet heard the Government's proposals for strengthening the security services to take on their new role in Northern Ireland.
	I am also concerned about the need for protocols to be put in place to ensure that the security services pass on the intelligence that they gather to the special branch of the PSNI to help it to combat the terrorist threat in Northern Ireland and also, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) mentioned earlier, pursue the issue of criminal activity.
	While my party will not divide the House on this issue, as my right hon. and hon. Friends have said, let me say that that does not mean that there are not issues that concern us in relation to the Bill. We will take the opportunity in Committee to table suitable amendments. We will also watch out for what the Government do. I hope that, if they are to legislate for further changes to the Northern Ireland Act 1998, they do so by way of proper, separate legislation, rather than through an amendment to this Bill, which would be constitutionally inappropriate.

Sammy Wilson: Breakfast, was it? Well, I think it is supper now. I think that we are all becoming dog-tired. We have reached a point at which even the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) is so beaten into submission that she agrees with my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) on almost anything, which I think makes history.
	I want to discuss two issues. The first is the devolution of policing. There have been long discussions about thatabout the reasons behind it, and about whether it is realistic. We know the attitude of representatives of Sinn Fein. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Conor Murphy) and the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Adams), neither of whom presents himself in the House, have defended criminality along the border, and have howled because the police and the Garda had the temerity to raid farmhouses and seize lorries that had been used to launder fuel. Regardless of whether terrorism is taking place, we must ask whether people with such attitudes to police activity against organised crime are fit to be Ministers responsible for justice or policing, or indeed members of the Policing Board or of local district policing partnerships.
	I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) was right: the SDLP and others canwhat was the term that he used?drink green beer. I do not think that he was exhorting them to drink green beerI hope he was not, for the devil's buttermilk with an Irish tinge is fairly far down the roadbut we can see how far we have to go.
	The Minister spelt out a couple of the implications of devolution of policing. The first related to security and intelligence. If policing were devolved, it would be inappropriate for national intelligence to be discussed, and for a Minister at devolved levelespecially one who might well have the contacts that Sinn Fein hasto have any access to national intelligence that had been gathered. I think that we should divorce the function of national intelligence-gathering from policing in Northern Ireland.
	Safeguards are needed, though, because of the contacts and links between terrorism and criminality. That issue has been raised time and again. Some of the intelligence gathered on terrorism may well relate to criminal activities. There must be protocols. The police in Northern Ireland must be sure that information will be passed to them indicating that such and such a terrorist, or terrorist group, is involved in criminal activity, so that they can act on that information.
	There is also the issue of the ability to gather intelligence. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) pointed out, it is not just a case of having the resources; it is a case of having the expertise. A large influx of people into Northern Ireland to gather intelligence might well stick out like a sore thumb. It is therefore important for the police to have an input, and I understand that that will happen.
	We heard about the implications of the police finance and the policing precept. I have huge worries about that. It is estimated that within the next two years the Northern Ireland police budget will be in deficit by 70 million, because of the freezing of the amount available. We have also heard of the threat from the Northern Ireland Office that the current number of police officers will be guaranteed only until 2010, after which, if we go down the Patten road, we shall see the end of funding for about 3,200 officers. If the policing precept is seen as a way of filling the gap, that would constitute unjustifiable taxation on the people of Northern Ireland, on top of the various other additional taxes being envisaged, such as water rates, the increase in the regional rate and the handing down of services to local councils that lack finance.
	The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Dr. McDonnell) said that co-operation on energy is one form of co-operation to which no one can attribute political connotationsthat it is just a question of practical common sense. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East has made it clear that where co-operation benefits people in Northern Irelandas did the recent security co-operation that led to raids in south Armaghwe support it. If the clause on energy and an all-Ireland energy market is going to ensure security of supply, cheaper supply, a better network and a better market, we have no difficulty with that at all. People in Northern Ireland pay more for electricity than they ought to. It is estimated that since privatisation, each household has paid about 1,200 more for its electricity than it would have paid on tariffs applying to the rest of the United Kingdom. So an all-Ireland energy market could well achieve economies of scale, but we need certain safeguards and assurances from the Minister.
	The supply chain in the Irish Republicthe Energy Supply Boarddoes not have a good record in delivering power. In Northern Ireland, 76 minutes of supply are lost per household per year; in the Irish Republic, 162 minutes are lost. That is because of a problem with the network, and like much in the Celtic tiger, outside the greater Dublin area one finds serious inefficiencies and defects. We have to be sure that funding for the all-Ireland energy market will not be used to address the ESB's inefficiencies, especially in border areas, and that that is not the implication of the all-Ireland electricity market.
	If an all-Ireland market is seen simply as a first step to giving us access to a British isles marketthe Irish Republic has indicated that it wants links with the English and Welsh gridswe welcome it. Indeed, many who see this as a way of developing north-south links might be a bit disappointed if it led to a British isles link, but of course, such a link makes sense in terms of security of supply and economies of scale. If it is such a first stepas it could, and should, bewe welcome it.
	There is much else in the Bill that, as my colleagues have said, we are not happy with and that we will seek to change. That said, I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to speak in the debate, even at this late hour.

Laurence Robertson: Indeed, they may not even wait until night. I am sure that the House will endorse my hon. Friend's comments on that point.
	The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) talked about what is not in the Bill, and he raised one or two important issues. If I may, I suggest that you and your colleagues, Madam Deputy Speaker, have been correct to allow the debate to stray slightly wider to talk about the future role of MI5, because it is relevant. The hon. Gentleman also spoke about possible exclusion from the Assembly, and the Secretary of State assured him that he did not seek to bring that about.
	The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik), with whom I have shared proceedings on so many statutory instruments, asked why the Bill will create so many more statutory instruments. The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) said how good it was to be debating primary legislation, and that is true, but the downside is that it will lead to many more Orders. The Government say that they are intent on getting the Assembly up and running soon, but it is rather contradictory to introduce so many important matters through statutory instrument.
	The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire also talked about recording people for electoral purposes and he made a sensible suggestion. There could be an opportunity to send out forms to households, even though it is individuals who are registered, to check that the details were correct. I understand why the system is being changed, and that in Northern Ireland people have to record much more information. However, I discussed the issue in Northern Ireland last week and it appears that people could still slip through the net. The hon. Gentleman made a sensible proposal and perhaps we will discuss it in Committee.

Laurence Robertson: Yes, I find it rather odd, which is all I need to say on that point. It does seem to be contradictory. The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) spoke about the difficulty of fund-raising for political purposes in Northern Ireland, which was agreed by most Members who spoke.
	My hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) expressed concern about the Secretary of State having power to set the election date. He was also concerned about devolving police powers while not all parties support the police. That point was also raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury. It is not just a matter of joining police boards; it is about hearts and minds and providing evidence to the police when crimes have taken place. That has not been the case; we are far from that position and it is a concern.
	The right hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), in a typically passionate speech, talked about people connected to terrorism not being allowed to sit on police boards or in government. He said that it is odd to be debating things that will not come about. In other words, we will need the Assembly to be up and running before the devolution of policing. It seems an odd situation for us to be in.
	If I am quoting him correctly, the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. Anderson) was probably calling for the nationalisation of the energy industry. He is not objecting to my paraphrase of his words. I cannot say that I agree with him on that point. He also strongly made the point that nobody should be a terrorist and a democratic politician. He was very clear that people have to make up their minds. They have to become democratic politicians and give up terrorism for good. He sounded an optimistic note, but I am not sure that it was entirely shared by the House.
	The hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) made a reasonable and wide-ranging speech. He endorsed calls for all parties to support the police and called for people to give up private armies. He questioned the need for them. He also raised an interesting point regarding donations. He said that whether donations coming from the Republic are legal will depend on Irish law, not our own. That seems to be a strange situation, especially when, as I understand it, money could come from America if it comes through the right channels. I do not think that is in the spirit of the laws that have been passed by this Parliament. There is a legal issue there, and possibly a constitutional one, and it needs to be discussed.
	The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Dr. McDonnell) welcomed moved towards a bigger energy market and said that he would welcome a British Isles market. He called for an increase in the use of renewable energy. There is a point about the energy market. As I understand it, there will not be one regulator for north and south, but there will still be one regulator in the north and one in the south who will attempt to harmonise regulation. We are not moving towards the full position that we have in Great Britain, where we had new electricity trading arrangements that have since changed to BETTAthe British electricity trading and transition arrangementsand there is an internal competitive market that supplies electricity. We are not moving towards such an arrangement because of the need for transparency in Northern Ireland and because the market, even with the south, will not be big enough. It would be advantageous for people in Northern Ireland and southern Ireland if we had that bigger market and a better trading arrangement. We would then see prices fall, just as they fell in Great Britain when that system was introduced here by the Government. This is a complicated area, and I hope that I have expressed my view on it reasonably clearly.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Wallace) stressed the need to remove violence as an option. He spoke about how some people are talking about it as no longer being a first option, but a final option. That cannot be right either. That is equally wrong.
	My hon. Friend also discussed the need to extend the arms amnesty, which the Government say is necessary to take into account paramilitary weapons on the loyalist side. However, we can equally say that there is a need for the amnesty to include the remaining weapons on the republican side; many Members expressed the view that the republican movement has not yet got rid of all its arms.
	The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), in a long but entertaining speech, covered many issues. One of the most interesting was whether it would be possible to get the devolution of policing through when there was a 40 per cent. Unionist vote in the Assembly. I look forward to the Minister's response.
	The hon. Gentleman bravely questioned the basis for the agreement in relation to cross-community support. Obviously, the whole agreement is about bringing people from the different communities together, yet that is one of the things that is holding up the process. When the issue of South Africa was raised, the hon. Member for Belfast, North said that it was not relevant, yet in a sense it is, because for South Africa to move on, people had to stop talking about their particular national identity. Rwanda moved on when people stopped saying that they were members of a particular tribe.
	However, in Northern Ireland we have, I regret, institutionalised sectarianism, and 50:50 police recruitment offers an example. Several Members said that they disapproved of that recruitment policy. The hon. Member for North Down referred to the issue and spoke movingly about murders committed by loyalist gangs, which are completely unacceptable. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury, I condemn violence from whichever side it comes. It must end; there is no reason or excuse for it.
	The hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) has been consistent for many years in his opposition to sharing government with people linked to terrorist organisations, but he told us passionately how much he wants the Assembly to be up and running, so that it can deal with many of the issues that are dealt with in the House. He, too, spoke against 50:50 recruitment.
	I am concerned about the falling number of police reservists, and about the fact that it seems that they will be replaced by community support officers. The Bill does not include such provisions, but the policy causes great concern in Northern Ireland so the Government may want to address it.
	The hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) spoke of the need for safeguards in respect of information gathering when the role of MI5 in Northern Ireland changes. He made the important point that MI5 must be sure to pass on to the police information that the police would regard as helpful. There were reports in the Northern Ireland press recently about one serious occasion when that had not occurred. I do not want to explore that point at this stage, but the issue is real.
	The hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr. McCrea) suffered, as I have suffered many times in the House, by speaking right at the end of a long debate. He was able to speak only for about two minutes, so although he is always worth listening to, on this occasion we were not allowed that luxury for very long.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury said, we shall not divide the House tonight, but there are several issues that we want to examine in Committee, and I am glad that some of the Committee stage will be taken on the Floor. We want to consider whether the electoral office changes could be slightly better made. Police and justice devolution is a big issue and we also want to discuss the funding of political parties. I want to explore whether more could be done to help to reduce the cost of energy in Northern Ireland and whether renewable energy can be brought in more quickly, because it is being adopted extremely slowly throughout Great Britain.
	We give the Bill a cautious welcome and look forward to further discussion of it, and indeed to the Minister's response to the debate.

David Hanson: I thank hon. Members from all parts of the House for what has been a fascinating and largely good-tempered debate. I have certainly enjoyed listening, and have noted certain issues to do with drinking green beer, with dogs' dinners and with laptops in haystacks, all of which has been fascinating and enjoyable. After seven hours in this Chamber, I find that dogs' dinners and green beer have their attractions.
	It is important that we have the consensus that we have today, and I am grateful for the broad welcome given to the Bill by the hon. Members for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) and for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik). I also welcome the assurances from DUP Members that they will not seek to divide the House. Important issues have been raised that I hope to address during my winding-up remarks, but we need to focus on the Bill's core purposes.
	Our aim in government has been to equip Northern Ireland to meet the challenges that it will face over the coming years, be they political, social, economic or environmental. The Bill seeks to do so by putting in place frameworks for the devolution of policing and criminal justice and for the regulation of political donations and elections, by securing for Northern Ireland a potential future on issues such as the electricity market and by tackling the question of decommissioning.
	As hon. Members have said, and as is clear from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's introductory remarks, the clear starting point for that has to be the restoration of the Assembly. The hon. Members for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) and for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) and others mentioned the fact that the Assembly needs to be restored as a matter of urgency. I fully agree with the comments by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) on that point. In the event of the Assembly being restored and government returning to its proper place in Northern Ireland, the Bill tackles some key issues.
	I recognise the concern expressed by hon. Members from all parts of the House about the provisions enabling the future devolution of policing and criminal justice. A number of points have been made by hon. Members, and it is only fair that I try to answer them today. First, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. Anderson) for welcoming the Bill. We want devolution of policing and criminal justice to take place at a point in the future when it is appropriate. The proposed arrangements must be robust, must be workable and must continue to deliver an effective, impartial and independent justice system. The Bill does not set out what should be devolved or how it should be done, and I refer all hon. Members to the document on these questions issued by the Government.
	Policing and devolution were mentioned by the hon. Members for Aylesbury, for Foyle (Mark Durkan), for Montgomeryshire, for South Down (Mr. McGrady), for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack), the right hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), and the hon. Members for Belfast, North, for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Wallace) and for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson). Obviously, it is of concern to all the Members who spoke in the debate. We certainly want Sinn Fein to join the Policing Board, and we want to see the devolution of policing, but I hope that I have been able to reassure right hon. and hon. Members throughout the House that the triple lock is in place: first, the Assembly must, on a cross-party vote, wish it; secondly, the Government must propose it; and thirdly, the House of Commons must approve it.

David Hanson: I cannot give way, because I must complete the point. [Interruption.] I hope that it will be; we will have to discuss those matters later. [Interruption.] These matters will be discussed by the usual channels, as the hon. Gentleman will know.
	The chief electoral officer's independence has been mentioned. The proposal will bring the chief electoral officer into line with other modern approaches and modern terms and conditions of appointment. Again, I hope that that will reassure the hon. Gentleman.
	Donations to political parties were mentioned in some detail. That part of the Bill makes provision for the reforms outlined in the Government's response to the consultation paper on 24 January. We have been clear that we want to ensure that the regulation of donations to political parties in Northern Ireland is effective and to bring Northern Ireland into line with the rest of the United Kingdom. However, there are significant changes that, I hope, hon. Members welcome.
	The hon. Members for Montgomeryshire, for Belfast, South (Dr. McDonnell) and for South Staffordshire and my hon. Friend the Member for South Down mentioned the transitional period and the need to tackle intimidation and donor intimidation. We have put in place partial transparency, whereby the report will be put to the Electoral Commission for the period up to 2007 for the very reason that we want to ensure that there is the possibility that individuals lack intimidation. That will also give parties the chance to let the new arrangements bed in before we move to full transparency.
	As was mentioned by several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire, we are in discussion with the Irish Government about their arrangements in the Republic of Ireland and how they impact on our own arrangements. Indeed, that matter was covered at the recent British-Irish governmental conference in London. I hope that those matters will be resolved to positive effect in due course.
	The hon. Member for North Down mentioned the Freedom of Information Act 2000, and I hope that I can assure her that that Act will not override any prohibition on the disclosure of information in the Bill. Section 44 of the 2000 Act will exempt information from disclosure if that is prohibited by another Act, and I hope that that covers the points that have been raised.
	The date of the Assembly election was mentioned by the hon. Members for South Staffordshire, for Belfast, East and for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson). My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland have made it clear very strongly that 2006 is decisive in the process of restoring the Assembly in Northern Ireland. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I, along with Irish colleagues, are engaged in intensive discussions with the political parties about how we can make progress, with a view to an early restoration of the Assembly. We hope that progress will be made soon, and in the context of early progress, an early election could be needed. The Bill contains provision to enable an Assembly election to take place earlier than May 2007 if required. I am glad that hon. Members welcome the potential for that to happen. The relevant clauses will be taken on the Floor of the House. The order could be taken in Committee, unless the usual channels wish it to be considered elsewhere.
	The extent of the amnesty period for arms decommissioning was mentioned by the hon. Members for Lancaster and Wyre, for Belfast, East and for North Down. As far as the Government are concerned, Provisional IRA decommissioning is on track. That is debateable, I know, and reports are forthcoming on the subject, but the provision in the Bill is focused on loyalist weapons. I concur with the hon. Lady and others that loyalist paramilitary activity must be condemned and that murder is murder, but loyalist weapons are out there and it is essential that we make provision for them. I condemn the use of those weapons and I hope that we will not need to invoke the procedure in the BillI hope that action will be taken much earlierbut while those weapons remain we need to make provision to allow further time for decommissioning. In addition, dissident groups such as Continuity IRA and Real IRA may be able to avail themselves of the provision.
	The strand amendments were mentioned by the hon. Members for Belfast, East, for Foyle and for Belfast, North. In the past couple of months we have had serious discussions about strand issues and I have had two meetings in Belfast with colleagues from all parties. My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister and others do not rule out amending the legislation, and I take the points made about having specific legislation. We are considering all those matters and we shall discuss them further with all the parties. We have to consider what would be a suitable vehicle for legislation. Our view has always been that if there is an opportunity to legislate through an amendment or a separate Bill, we shall take it, and if there is agreement, we will take advantage of it. However, we need to consider those matters in some detail for the future.
	I am pleased that the prospects for Northern Ireland's economy have been mentioned, because I do not want us to lose sight of those aspects of the Bill. Several of the Bill's provisions underline the Government's commitment to securing the future of Northern Ireland. The single wholesale electricity market was mentioned by the hon. Members for Belfast, South and for East Antrim and welcomed by the Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen. The creation of a single wholesale electricity market is a long-standing aim of both Governments and has been a prominent feature of recent British-Irish intergovernmental conferences. We want that market to be established for the pragmatic reasons that all hon. Members understand: it will help the mutual economy of north and south and bring social benefits in future. The business community and the Confederation of British Industry want it to work, and so do the Government.
	The Bill contains strong measures on energy. The hon. Members for Belfast, South and for East Antrim welcomed the fact that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has established a 59 million package of support in an environment and renewable energy fund to enhance and accelerate renewable development and deployment in Northern Ireland. The Bill includes provision to amend existing legislation to provide financial assistance for energy purposes and give a massive boost to renewable energy in Northern Ireland.
	The Government's commitments to increase borrowing capacity, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Lagan Valley, are extremely important, because whatever else happens, Northern Ireland needs to compete on the global stage. The single electricity market, increasing expenditure on renewables and ensuring that we have the ability to support Northern Ireland's economy will be crucial in future.
	I welcome the commitment to the Chief Constable's sole corporation.
	There are many miscellaneous provisions in the Bill, which is a positive measure for Northern Ireland. It is a good Bill that will help planning for Northern Ireland's future, and I commend it to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Charles Clarke: Amendment (a) is largely technical and clarifies clause 5 by adding the words or be accompanied by after the requirement for an application for a designated document to include an application to be entered on the register. This is the second time in four weeks that these amendments have returned to the House for consideration, so I hope that I do not need to spend long making the case to reject them yet again. The issue has already been debated, voted on and approved twice by the House. A similar amendment was defeated on Report on 18 October last year by a majority of 32. In our consideration of Lords amendments on 13 February, it was rejected by a majority of 31.
	We have always made it clear that the identity cards scheme has been designed as a compulsory scheme for all United Kingdom residents and is eventually intended to become such a scheme. In the second phase of the scheme, it will be a requirement to register and there will be a civil financial penalty regime to tackle failure to do so. We have made it clear, too, that linking identity cards to designated documents is a central part of the first phase of the scheme, allowing a sensible phased introduction of identity cards. Once passports and residents' permits are designated, as British nationals resident in the United Kingdom renew or apply for passports, and as foreign nationals renew or apply for residents' permits, those individuals will be entered on the national identity register and issued with ID cards.
	Each designation order under clause 4 will need to be approved by both Houses of Parliament under the affirmative resolution procedure. The amendments proposed by the other place would make registration and an identity card optional extras for anyone applying for a designated document. Last week, we began to phase in the issue of e-passports incorporating a facial image biometricthe first generation biometric passport. Once we move to the next phasebiometric passports including a facial image and fingerprint biometricsanyone applying for a passport must go through exactly the same application process as they would for an identity card, and their personal details and biometrics will be recorded on a central passport database. The data is being collected in any case when people renew their passport. Merging the two processes will add the statutory safeguards provided by the Bill, such as the creation of a national identity scheme commissioner, to the passport data. The Bill will therefore provide more safeguards for people who renew their passports, but the Lords amendment would remove those safeguards.

Neil Gerrard: I would be grateful if my right hon. Friend clarified an issue relating to the renewal of passports. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) said that there is an element of choice, however small, about whether to have a passport. He said, too, that all passport holders can choose when they renew their passport and can do so at any time. The UK Passport Service website, however, suggests that it is only possible to do so if a passport is full, has expired, or will do so in the next nine months. Which statement is correct? If the website is at fault, can it be corrected?

Simon Hughes: The Home Secretary will know that many people have no objection to the idea of signing up to an international agreement to have a new form of passport with the necessary biometric and other details. However, is the implication of the Government's insistence on the linkage that there will be a new precondition for any British citizen who wants to have a British passport, namely, that they will also have to accept an identity card? Does that not change the basis on which we were entitled to passports in the past? They were always in theory discretionary, but given to people if there was no very good reason for not doing so.

Charles Clarke: No, I will not.
	The structure that I have described indicates that there are four common sense reasons for rejecting the amendments from the other place: costs, benefits, convenience and security. First, on costs, we want the identity card scheme to provide the greatest benefits at the lowest cost to the taxpayer. The Lords amendments would increase the cost of establishing the scheme because of the greater complexity of handling an optional service that would mean that some people could opt out of having an identity card when obtaining a passport. Moreover, uncertainty would affect the unit cost and thus the fee level for identity cards. That is a serious point. Cost is a factor that has been raised across the House and the Lords amendments make the issue more, rather than less, difficult to resolve.
	Secondly, there would be an impact on the benefits of the identity card scheme. Reducing the speed of the roll-out of ID cards would slow down the wider benefits such as combating illegal immigration or improving the effectiveness of public services. Thirdly, there would be inconvenience to the public if the Lords amendments were passed. It does not make sense to issue a biometric passport without the accompanying identity card. The process of enrolling biometrics and checking identity for both documents will be virtually identical. The same data will be held in both cases. Fourthly, there is the question of security. We would directly be offering an open goal to fraudsters, criminals and immigration offenders if we said that they could simply choose to avoid being included in the national identity register when they applied for a passport or an immigration document.

Edward Garnier: On the face of it, this is just another Committee stage debate about the inclusion of the word may or the word must in clauses 5 and 8, or the words of Government amendment (a). Despite the guillotine, this short debate is about a lot more than that. The amendments are not, as the Home Secretary says, technical. One would have to be deaf or stupid to accede to the arguments advanced by him tonight.
	We all know the Home Secretary is neither deaf nor stupid, but for the life of us we cannot understand what the Government are attempting to do, yet again, by riding roughshod over common sense and justice. We are discussing the relationship between the citizen and the state, and whether it is right for the Government to change that relationship fundamentally by requiring the citizen to do what the state says he must do for its convenience, rather than his. This part of the Bill and the debate that we are having fully describes the difference between, on the one hand, me, my party and our supporters tonight and the Members of the other place whose amendments we are seeking to sustain and, on the other, the Government.
	Through the Bill, the Government have revealed their true colours and motives more clearly tonight than they may have realised: Do as we say, not as we do. What do they do? Let us have a look, as the Home Secretary invited us to do. I know that he is not deaf or stupid, so we will take him back to his own manifesto, to which he glibly referred us this evening. It is worth repeating, and it is a document that he will no doubt enjoy hearing. It states:
	We will introduce ID cards, including biometric data like fingerprints, backed up by a national register and rolling out initially on a voluntary basis as people renew their passports.
	The words are plain and their meaning is obvious. I doubt that anybody, even the Home Secretary, is confused by what the Government intended that the public should understand before the general election in 2005.
	It is clear beyond doubt that the Government know that their case is flawed and that Baroness Scotland in the other place and the Home Secretary and his Ministers in the House know that they are dangling on a flimsy thread of argument, yet they still seem to enjoy the twisting in the wind that we observe. Why else did they agree to introduce compulsion only following further primary legislation for that 15 or 20 per cent. of the British public who do not have a passport? They did it because they were complying with their own manifesto. They knew what voluntary means, but now they pretend it means something else.
	This is not about the Salisbury convention or about a proper balance between this House and the other. It is about a Government who are guilty of intellectual dishonesty on a grand scale and who do not have the decency or the common sense to understand that, admittedly unusually, the public have read their manifesto and taken them at their word.
	We recently had the derisory spectacle of the Secretary of State for Health throwing the Labour party's manifesto commitment on smoking in public places into the ashtray. Clearly, manifestos are relied on only when it suits the occasion, but it is surely better to have half an eye on the wording if they want to rely on it.

Edward Garnier: Trying to extract from the Government's words any coherent intellectual basis for the case that they are now making is extremely difficult. The Government have changed their reasons for supporting not only identity cards, but the national identity register, and they change their position on what they mean by voluntary and what they think that they mean by compulsory day by day.
	As the Home Secretary undoubtedly had reported to him, because he is neither deaf nor stupid, the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality said in Committee that the Government accept that their arguments in support of identity cards and the national identity register as a bulwark against terrorism are flawed. He also said that they accept that their arguments in support of identity cards and the national identity scheme as a bulwark against general crime, immigration breaches and other matters are all flawed. As each defence has been removed from them, they have returned to the argument that they will find ID cards more convenient.

Edward Garnier: It is but one example, and we have had several since 1997.
	On 13 February, the Government agreed that compulsory registration on the national identity register and the identity card scheme for the 20 per cent. of the population who do not have passports should require new legislation. Did they think that the remaining 80 per cent. of the population would not notice that attempt at compulsion by stealth? Unless one voluntarily applies to renew one's passport, one will face a financial penalty.
	All the information set out in schedule 1 to the Identity Cards Bill must be spewed up into the Government's great bucket of information. Some 40 million British citizens are being told that to be compelled to do something at the Government's conveniencethey will have to go through a processing centre; individually, they will probably have to pay a lot more than 30 directly; and collectively they will have to pay millions indirectlyis a voluntary process.
	Look at what the Government are now proposing and compare it with the words of the Home Secretary just a moment ago, when he read out his own manifesto:
	We will introduce ID cards, including biometric data like fingerprints, backed up by a national register and rolling out initially on a voluntary basis as people renew their passports.
	I know that the Government do not like hearing their own words, which allow the public to appreciate precisely what they mean, but they will hear them again and again until they realise that their arguments are flawed and that the public are no deafer and no more stupid than the Home Secretary.
	The Government have said that identity cards will defeat terrorism, welfare fraud, general crime, immigration breaches and identity fraud. They have said that it is vital to introduce identity cards and the national identity register to deal with all those problems. If that were the magic of this great scheme, they would not let it roll out over the next 10 years; they would have introduced it yesterday or the day before.
	The Government have stopped believing in anything that they say, and even if they keep saying it, they know that it will not produce the results that they claim. There is no urgency in their programmeassertion has followed assertion, but they know that that will not do. They have resorted to an argument based on public convenience and a deliberately misleading reliance on an international obligation to introduce biometric passports. Many Labour Members realise that the argument in relation to biometric passports is utterly flawed, because it is simply not a proper comparison. As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) mentioned on 13 February, biometric passports will contain perhaps three biometrics, not 13. There is no obligation under our international treaties to make the passport a gateway to the national identity register.
	The Government will not tell us what further documents are to constitute that gateway. One of the 61 powers that the Bill gives to the Home Secretary to make law by statutory instruments allows him to create a list of designated documents. So far, the Government admit that it includes passports, residence documents and other forms of travel documentsbut what are those other documents, and where is the list? They have not a clue, and it shows every time they argue for the Bill and against the Lords amendments.
	What will this exercise cost? Again, the Government have not a clue, and it shows. [Laughter.] It is interesting that they seem to think that this attempt fundamentally to change the relationship between citizen and state is a matter of risibility. The problem that they face is that they no longer have any understanding of the public, any understanding of what they are in business for, or any understanding of what this House is for. The longer they go on sniggering, the longer the public will find their arguments increasingly unattractive. Will this resistance to the Lords amendments make the national identity register and the identity cards scheme fit for purpose, to use a favourite phrase? They have not a clue, and the history of this legislation shows it. Do they know if and when, or how, these proposals will adversely affect the individual? They have not a clue, and if they do, they do not care.
	Parliament should protect the citizen against the overbearing Executive. That is our duty, and tonight it should also be our pleasure. We are not here for the convenience of this arrogant Government. Let us hold firm for liberty and common sense. I urge the House to support the Lords amendments.

Nicholas Clegg: My hon. Friend makes a compelling point. The problem is compounded by the fact that the Home Secretary has told us that any move to fully fledged compulsion will be made through primary legislation. We are being asked to accept that gratefully as a significant concession. What possible purpose will be served by primary legislation to make the possession of identity cards compulsory if they have, to all intents and purposes, already been made compulsory for the vast majority of the population?Legislating badly is one thing. Legislating for something that the Government have already imposed surreptitiously on the British people is at best a waste of parliamentary time and at worst downright cynical.
	There are many good reasons for not making such a flawed Bill compulsory. It is based on the flimsiest costings. Only last week, the London School of Economics estimated that the Government would rack up a deficit of 1.8 billion in 10 years unless they significantly raised the fees for identity cards and new biometric passports. The Government's guesstimateit is no more than thatof a fee of 93 for the combined card and passport already appears entirely implausible.
	The central database for ID cards will be far more powerful than any other equivalent ID database used elsewhere in Europe. Experience in the United Kingdom suggests that initial use will soon be expanded. When ID cards were introduced as a wartime measure in 1939, they had three stated purposes: conscription, national security and rationing. By 1950, an audit found that that had expanded to 39 stated purposes. The inevitable creeping expansion of the information held on individuals by the state will unalterably change the relationship between citizen and Government in this country.
	The Bill is based on flimsy costings, does not have a clear purpose and now rests on a fictional use of the English language. Such a measure is bad enough. It should not now be foisted on the British people through the back door. I urge hon. Members to support the Lords amendment.

Richard Shepherd: Both Opposition Front Benchers have made much of altering the relationship between the citizen and the state. They are right. One of most curious aspects of the measure, which is being foisted on the British public, is its link to the royal prerogative. The Home Secretary exercises the royal prerogative in issuing passports. He is the determinant of that.
	I am therefore puzzled that the Home Secretary uses something that is in the gift of the royal prerogativewhether we have passports is down to the Government, not to any right in legislationand links it to this appalling Bill, which diminishes the liberties of the House and our people exponentially. He will not even take questions properly to try to advise us about why he finds the royal prerogative the right means for directing the new Labour concept that each one of us should be numbered, identified and subservient to the state. It is a perverse proposition, which reduces us greatly. Passports should not be the route whereby he forces on the British people something that appeared in the Labour party manifesto as a voluntary opportunity.
	The House should stand with the House of Lords and reject the miserable Government's proposals.

Stewart Hosie: There are two constantly repeated assertions in regard to the compulsory ID card system. The first is that the Government planned all along to deliver a compulsory ID card scheme from the start. The second is that this ID card scheme is required in order for the Government to meet their international obligations. I should like briefly to question those assertions.
	The Swedish Government have introduced their new biometric passport, which complies with the International Civil Aviation Organisation's recommendations on biometrics and machine-readable travel documents. It has digitised facial images of the holder stored on a microchip on the card, so there is no requirement for a central database. Fingerprints will be added at the appropriate time by February 2008. The passport also complies with the United States visa waiver programme requirements. So the argument that we need a compulsory identity card, let alone a central biometric register, is plainly wrong.
	We could have done as the Swedish Government have done, and introduced a basic biometric passport with the inclusion of fingerprints at the appropriate time by February 2008 or, in line with the Labour manifesto pledge, introduced a genuinely voluntary biometric ID card in conjunction with the new passport. The Home Secretary suggested earlier that the collection of the necessary information would have been one and the same in either case. This could all have been done on a similar basis to the Swedish model, with the biometric information held on the card rather than on a central database, with all the costs and dangers implicit in that.
	There is no obligation under any international treaty or domestic manifesto pledge to issue a compulsory biometric ID card. There is absolutely no requirement to roll out from day one what is effectively a compulsory ID card through the issuing of a passport under the false insistence, or disguise, that it is voluntary, and then to do so compulsorily for any number of spurious reasons in futurenot least the fraudulent pretext that 1.7 billion will be saved, mainly in the private sector. That is a falsehood; it was not rebutted properly in the last debate. It would be wrong to introduce the compulsory ID card and the national biometric database on that justification.
	I want to speak briefly on the Government's manifesto pledge, which others have spoken about:
	We will introduce ID cards, including biometric data like fingerprints, backed up by a national register and rolling out initially on a voluntary basis as people renew their passports.
	This is not voluntary; it is effective compulsion. As the manifesto expressly stated that it would happen on a voluntary basis, the Lords' disagreement does not violate the Salisbury convention, as it says precisely that the passport option means that people are not voluntarily joining the ID card scheme. To all intents and purposes, this is wholly compulsory. On that basis, my hon. Friends and I shall support the Lords amendment.

William Cash: This is compulsionthere is no doubt about it. The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Stewart Hosie) has made that perfectly clear, as have others from our Front Bench. I am extremely glad that our own side has adopted the position of truculent opposition to these proposals in the House of Lords, and tribute should be paid to those in the House of Lords for the great work they have done on the Bill.
	When the Bill started out on Second Reading, some of us were perhaps more truculent than others on the subject, but the fact remains that we have arrived at a sensible attack on the Bill, which the Home Secretary has completely failed either to deflect or to deter. The real problem is the votes that the Labour party will muster in the Lobby, which is why reference was made earlier to the question of an elected dictatorship.
	This is not just some minor matter; this is about the liberty of the subject. As I pointed out on Second Reading at the beginning of these proceedings some months ago, it is reminiscent of the state that George Orwell predicted in his book 1984. It is all very well the Home Secretary shaking his head, but the plain fact is that the case is made that this is compulsion. He tries to wriggle out of it, but he fails. He has been completely outdone by the report from the London School of Economics, those in industry who have commented on this and the non-governmental organisations.
	The reality is that these proposals are iniquitous, unacceptable and a serious infringement of the liberty of the individual. They should be consigned to the dustbin.

John Greenway: No, the Government's proposal will increase the cost. This is disproportionate. Before we vote on the issue, we should consider the Labour party's manifesto carefully, although there is compulsionbe in no doubt about that. Whether someone has a passport is not a voluntary matter as 85 or 90 per cent. of our constituents need a passport. We have a right to have passports.
	The cost of what the Government are doing to our constituents with this Bill is something that we should reject. I urge the House to agree to the Lords amendments. Let Labour Members vote as their hearts and minds tell them to vote and reject the Government's amendment. Let us deal with this matter now.

Simon Hughes: I speak to support my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Clegg) and the view that the Liberal Democrats have taken consistently for many years.
	There may be disagreement on quite how freedom to travel should be defined. I share the view that there is a freedom to travel. It is a European Union freedom, certainly. There may not be a right to have a passport historically, for the reasons given by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) and, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), it was always a question of the royal prerogative, and the Foreign Secretary would sign the inside of the passport. However, there is no doubt that there was a common understanding that people would be able to travel if they needed to.
	The Home Secretary has come here tonight to say to the elderly relative who is told that his or her child is ill in another country, This is a matter of free choice, but you must have an identity card if you want to visit a relative who is very ill. The Home Secretary has come to the House to say to a business person, If you want to do business and fly the flag for Britain, you must have an identity card as a condition of your choice to go and sell our products abroad. The Home Secretary is saying to the civil servant who is told that he must go and do work for our country abroad, You must also have an identity card. That is not freedom of choice in the conventional sense of the term, and the Home Secretary can never persuade us that it is.
	Furthermore, the argument is clearly disingenuous. Originally, a supplementary part of the Bill provided for a piece of secondary legislation to be passed by both Houses before compulsion took over from the voluntary system. Then we were told that we would have a different Billbecause this Bill did not provide for compulsion, compulsion would be dealt with separately. Only now, at this last stage, are we being told that under this system there will now compulsion if people want passports.
	Finally, there is a constitutional point that I want to make to the Home Secretary. He has come here seeking to persuade us that the House of Lords should not be followed. The Government may have a majority of Members in this place, but it has a lower share of the vote than any majority Government since 1832. It has no justification for complaining that the House at the other end of the Corridor should not do its job, and ensure that Government proposals that were not in the manifesto are stopped by the British Parliament. The House at the other end of the Corridor is the creation of this Government; it is put there by this Government; it is nominated by this Government; it is bought, in part, by this Government. The House at the other end of the Corridor is entirely a new Labour creation. The Government have a cheek to come here and tell us that, with their minimal moral and political authority, they must ask the House of Lords to reject a view that the House of Commons has passed, and insert another view.
	On these Benches we stand by principle, we stand by practice, we stand by precedent, we stand by democracy, and we stand for the right of Parliament as a whole to do its job as a whole and to throw out this Bill as a whole, if that is the view that the other House holds to. We encourage the other House to hold to it because the other House is right. The Home Secretary can persuade no one tonight that he is right. He is flawed, fundamentally wrong, and trying to deceive usbut we are not buying any of it.

Mark Fisher: There is a perfectly logical case for compulsory identity cards. If one believes, as the Home Secretary does, that they really will deliver something very important in the fight against terrorism, fraud or impersonation, of course we should have a universal card, and a universal card is only possible if it is compulsory. However, that is not what our manifesto says. It says that there should be a voluntary scheme, and that there will not be a universal scheme for many years. At present, there are no overt Government plans for such a scheme, and it will be rolled out very slowly. Therefore, the benefits that can only really accrue from an ID card scheme will not happen until it is a wholly universal scheme. The whole enterprise is deeply, logically flawed.
	The Home Secretary has got himself into an appalling semantic tangle. If he is trying to persuade not only this House but the public that the word must means voluntary and that the opposite is the case, and that what he is suggesting is not what the Lords are suggesting, then he has got himselfas I have in this sentenceinto a terrible logical tangle. If we believe in a voluntary scheme, as the Home Secretary and the manifesto say that we do, there is no way that we can reject the Lords amendments. The Lords make it very clear that the scheme is voluntary, not compulsory. By rejecting the amendments, the Government will be opting for compulsion. They should have the courage of their convictions and say that this will be a compulsory universal scheme, but the Home Secretary will not do that. If he is going to nail his flag to the mast of a voluntary scheme, the Lords amendment must be supported.

Charles Clarke: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to respond to this debate. I had not intended doing so, but the use of the word deceit by the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) provokes me to do so directly. Let me be very clear about the process. The first consultation document that this Government issued on an identity card scheme, in 2002, canvassed the option of a universal scheme linked to passports. When we announced the decision, in principle, in November 2003 to introduce ID cards, it was made clear then that there would be a two-stage scheme. It was stated that the second stage would be compulsorythat it would apply to every UK residentwith a civil financial penalty for failing to register and to obtain an ID card when required.
	It was also made clear in November 2003 that during the initial stage, as well as introducing a voluntary plain ID card for those who do not have a passport, the intention was to link the issue of ID cards to that of more secure passports. That is why we stated the following in Cmd 6020, in November 2003:
	By linking the card scheme to widely held identity documents most people will get a card conveniently and automatically as they renew an existing document.
	That announcement in principle was put into effect when the Government published the draft Identity Cards Bill in April 2004, with a provision in clause 5(2) requiring an applicant for any designated document to register and to be issued with an ID card alongside the designated document. We were again very clear that in the first stage of the ID card scheme there should be no possibility of obtaining a designated document such as a passport without an ID card. The provision requiring applicants for passports or other designated documents to obtain an ID card was also included in the first Identity Cards Bill, introduced before the election, which was passed by the House of Commons in February 2005 and given a Second Reading in the Lords in March 2005.

David Amess: I have the honour to present a petition that has been signed by a great many of my constituents who regard Southend hospital cancer centre as a centre of excellent and who will resist any efforts to change the present arrangements for treating patients who suffer from cancer.
	The petition states:
	To the House of Commons,
	The Petition of the residents of South Essex and others states,
	We pay tribute to all who work in the Southend Hospital Cancer Centre, believe it does wonderful and very caring work and achieves excellent outcomes. We wish to see this valuable facility retained locally to serve local people and believe that removing it will not provide cost savings or a better service for local people or better outcomes. We note the efforts of the local press and local MPs in successfully fighting for the centre some years ago and welcome the new efforts of the local press and MPs in working together to retain the centre now.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons call upon the Government to accept the views of local people and retain the cancer centre at Southend hospital and to give it full support in the future.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Mr. Campbell]

Nick Brown: My hon. Friend is quite right. The Nexus budget for the financial year must cover the shortfall; the authority has no choice but to do so. Nexus has set a provisional budget, which is a combination of fare increases and cuts in secure services. As my hon. Friend has suggested, it is drawing down its reserves to cover half the shortfall. It can only do so once, as those reserves will not be available for drawing down again. We need a solution to this year's problem, and a permanent solution for future years.
	Students who will be hit by the fare rise think that it is unfair. They are right to hold that view, as Nexus did not intend to introduce a fare rise until the budget shortfall became clear. Pensioners and organisations that represent them are upset too, as pensioners do not want their free travel to be paid for by service cuts and fare rises for others. That point has been made clear to me, and I am quite certain that it has been made to my right hon. and hon. Friends who represent the county. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for the part that he has played in trying to find a solution. Talks are continuing, but I fear that they are doing so in the same way that a fairground roundabout continues in motionit goes round and round, but it is does not go anywhere.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) secured on the Floor of the House a promise of a meeting with the Prime Minister. If there is not some real progress, my hon. Friends and I will very soon insist on that meeting. We want our money, and I for one will not give up until we have secured justice for our constituents.

David Anderson: I will try to be even more concise. My right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East and Wallsend (Mr. Brown) and my hon. Friend the Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) did not talk about the way in which the scheme applies to disabled people. It is perverse that the impact of free travel for disabled people, which was in the Budget, might well be that we find that the care bus service will be withdrawn from Tyne and Wear.
	Let me read from an e-mail that I received from a man living in my constituency who has severe problems due to muscular sclerosis. He wrote:
	No-one I speak to on the bus can actually believe that it will be stopped . . . as threatenedthey cannot contemplate their lives without it. It is a mental torture for them to be worrying about losing their independence, when many already have enough to worry about with illness and disabilities . . . As our MP I hope you can let those with the power to solve this realise that they are not playing with pound signs, they are playing with the independence of already vulnerable people who deserve to be treated with respect  dignitynot left hanging on a thread of threats!
	That is what we are talking about with this cock up. We are talking about bus services that should be a real bonus for our people actually becoming a detriment.

Phil Woolas: I should start by paying the usual tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East and Wallsend (Mr. Brown) for securing the debate and raising a matter that is extremely important to his constituents and those of other hon. Members in the Chamber. I have a useful opportunity to explain how we support services via the formula grant. My right hon. Friend is obviously especially concerned about the distribution of funding for free bus travel for pensioners in Tyne and Wear.
	Before looking in detail at the process, it is worth reminding ourselves of the substantial social benefits that will be delivered by the Government initiative on concessionary travel. The need to meet the transport requirements of a growing population of older people is vital to the success of the Government's commitment to sustainable mobility and to people's ability to retain a high quality of life as their income, health and mobility levels change. Despite the rising number of older driving licence holders, declining driving ability and financial constraints mean that many motorists will have to adjust their driving practices, and probably ultimately give up their car. A high proportion of the older population will be dependent on public transport. However, evidence suggests that many will experience difficulties in using bus and rail services.
	For the first time, in 200607, we have announced two-year grant allocations for every local authority in England. We have put a premium on the stability and predictability of funding, so that councils can plan ahead for better service delivery. The first three-year settlement will be introduced alongside the next spending review round commencing in 200809. In the interests of further stability, we have made grant floors a permanent part of the grant distribution system. Floors guarantee a minimum year-on-year grant increase for all authorities and increase local authority confidence in planning for the medium to long term.
	Tyne and Wear, to which my right hon. Friend referred, has benefited from the extra money that we have provided in recent years to the local authorities, which have invested in improving local servicesfor example, reducing antisocial behaviour and providing more support for vulnerable people in Newcastle, developing healthy communities in Gateshead, and supporting carers in Sunderland.
	For the 10-year period to 200708, we have been able to provide Tyne and Wear metropolitan district councils with an average annual increase in general grant of 4 per cent. in cash terms. For 200607 and 200708, the grant increases going to Tyne and Wear district councils are 14.7 million and 14.8 million respectively, or 2.8 per cent. in each year, running ahead of current inflation. Additional transport funding for Tyne and Wear has also come through the local transport plan and Challenge funding routes. We have provided 12.9 million for concessionary fares above last year's grant, and 1.7 million for the Metro transport system.
	Capital funding to enable implementation of its local transport plan is allocated by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to the Tyne and Wear authorities, mostly in the form of supported capital expenditurerevenueor SCER, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East and Wallsend knows. The allocations are determined primarily by formulas reflecting transport need and adjusted to reflect the quality of the local transport plan and the progress made in implementing the plan. A single allocation is made for Tyne and Wear, which is distributed among the authorities in accordance with their wishes.
	The allocation for 200506 is 68 per cent. higher than for 19992000. As this is capital funding, it cannot be used directly to support the cost of concessionary fares. However, this high level of central Government capital support releases local authorities' own funding to support other initiatives in accordance with local priorities.
	Since 1998 Government have provided Nexus, the Tyne and Wear transport executive, with more than 7.7 million funding specifically to support the operation of a number of bus services through the urban and rural bus Challenge and Kickstart programmes. Funding for concessionary fares is supported through formula grant.

Phil Woolas: I assure my right hon. Friend that meaningful discussions are going on. The Government recognise the real difficulties that the transport executive has in balancing its budget. Last summer's consultation with the Local Government Association and local councils resulted in general agreement that the distribution of money through the formula is the best way in which to pursue the issue. Indeed, representations by my right hon. Friend and others on the formula grant distribution method show that the needs of his authority, and of Tyne and Wear authorities in general, indicate that there is a shortfall in the ability of the formula grant to distribute money. Discussions have taken place and are taking place with the local authorities, the transport authority and the transport executive to try to resolve that problem. The level of pensioner bus usage in my right hon. Friend's area is very high, which is why we are continuing discussions with the transport authority and local authorities. My difficulty is that we must treat all local authorities fairly, and I know that my right hon. Friend agrees with that point.
	Funding on concessionary fares is supported by the formula grant. My right hon. Friend is aware that the Chancellor added an additional 350 million in formula grant in 200607 in order to support the move from the statutory half-fare scheme to a free-fare scheme for all pensioners and disabled people. The funding for those new responsibilities has been added to formula grant in line with a commitment to provide authorities with continued flexibility on the use of their resources.

Phil Woolas: The right hon. Gentleman has made an important point. However, it is also true that local government in general and the LGA in particular support the idea of distributing money through formula grant. Devolution, which involves the distribution of money by local authorities, supports the idea that formula grant is the way forward. The alternative is a specific grant to target individual authorities, but the right hon. Gentleman, his party and the LGA would not support that view. We have a situation in which the distribution of money is based on a formula that inevitably results in winners and losers.
	The Government always face difficult decisions in dividing up a fixed pot of money where there will be, as I have said, winners and losers. We have looked to ensure an equitable arrangement in relation to concessionary fares funding, which involves an arrangement that retains local control for spending as requested by local government, rather than separately distributing the money through a specific grant.

Stephen Byers: The Minister will know that local government makes a number of requests and representations to Government, not all of which are agreed. He said that he wants all authorities to be treated fairly. The consequence of his decision is that Tyne and Wear is being treated unfairly. This debate is being held because we, as Members for Tyne and Wear, find that unacceptable. Yes, we want free travel for our pensioners, but we want it to be done in a way that is fair and just, which is not the case at the moment. What will the Minister do to resolve that situation?

Phil Woolas: My right hon. Friend makes a valid request. The Government's approach is to examine the budget of Nexus, the transport executive in the region, to see how we can ensure that the transport concessions that are madefor example, for the student scheme, for the schoolchildren's scheme, and for the existing concessionary schemebenefit from the allocation of Government money. We have to ensure that that scheme is legal and that it is fair to other authorities that are arguing that they are losing out. I have to say that none of the authorities that is benefiting from the allocation of money have written to me thanking me for it.
	My right hon. Friend makes a serious point. We must ensure that we allocate the money through formula grant in a fair way and recognise the needs of the particular transport authority. That is why we are examining the way in which we can distribute money through the formula grant and other possible interventions. We want to ensure that my right hon. Friend's scheme for students, which has led to improvements in the stay-on rate for further education when compared with other areas, continues, and that student and school student travel for buses in his area is maintained and improved. How do we ensure that the unintended consequences of formula distribution of grant do not militate against the social benefits of the schemes that are currently in place for his constituents? That is our task, and the reason for genuinely congratulating him on raising the issue.
	In developing the approach to grant distribution that we have now adopted, we had the benefit of extensive consultation, both in the official level settlement working group, in which my right hon. Friend participated, and in full consultation, especially involving local government, last summer on the range of our proposals for grant distribution.
	The papers that the Association of North East Councils, which was mentioned earlier, brought to the settlement working group attempted to estimate the cost of moving from an authority's current position to a free-fare scheme. Inevitably, they could only be estimates. As I have explained, we could not base formula grant distribution only on those measurements.
	Instead, we suggested that we should re-weight the existing formula, known as the lower tier environmental, protective and cultural services formula to reflect the characteristics of areas where take-up of free bus travel is likely to be higher. Indeed, in the period between the announcement of the concessionary scheme in March and the consultation process in July and through to December, we took on board the points that my right hon. Friend made and the representations of others. That led to a significant increase in the money to Tyne and Wear.
	We consulted on that in the summer of 2005 and, as part of the consultation, we exemplified the change in the EPCS formula. It is important to stress that the majority of responses to the consultation supported the change to the district level EPCS formula. I have to be fair to other local authorities in the area
	The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
	Adjourned at twelve minutes to midnight.